Talk:Carthage/Archive 1

2910:

measly 2 hours or just a descent 30 minutes to make long debates and get tangled with someone else like I used to, I still log on at work and Reverting your edits Reverting your Vandalism and making the citation here on talk:Carthage. It started out actually pretty good at first I had thought you were really here for the issue at hand and tried to be patient even tho I do have intolerance for ignorance. But then you began to show your true colors and instead of debating the issue of Sacrifice you started to lob Personal attacks directed at me not the issue, acting as a vigilantly that very thing that rips away order vigilantly actions, no wonder there is no longer any level headed debate here. So then it has become clear to me that your not here for the article or the edit's I have made but simply have a personal agenda against me, Tell me why are you hounding me around Knowledge posting in every talk page of the articles I participate in? Why are you making mass deletions of my edits and then citing... Well to sum it all up:

3762:...Also those who excavated the site have supported the view that Phoenicians practised child sacrifice. A Greek writer, the third century BC Alexandrian Critarchus tells us how the Carthaginians would sacrifice a child to Chronus every time they needed a big favour. Other ancient sources say or imply that child sacrifice was a feature of Carthaginian religious life. Centuries later, the sources appear to have been vindicated with the discovery of a sacred precinct in Carthage. Dedicated to Tanit Pene Baal and her consort Baal Hammon, the area contained numerous stelae and burian urns, filled with the cremated bones of infants, lambs and kids, along with amulets, beads and jewllery. Biblical evidence also attends to child sacrifice among the Canaanites, as the Bible calls the Phoenicians... In any event the similarity of the literary sources suggest that child sacrifice was a very real part of Charthaginian religious practice... 1659:...Also those who excavated the site have supported the view that Phoenicians practised child sacrifice. A Greek writer, the third century BC Alexandrian Critarchus tells us how the Carthaginians would sacrifice a child to Chronus every time they needed a big favour. Other ancient sources say or imply that child sacrifice was a feature of Carthaginian religious life. Centuries later, the sources appear to have been vindicated with the discovery of a sacred precinct in Carthage. Dedicated to Tanit Pene Baal and her consort Baal Hammon, the area contained numerous stelae and burian urns, filled with the cremated bones of infants, lambs and kids, along with amulets, beads and jewllery. Biblical evidence also attends to child sacrifice among the Canaanites, as the Bible calls the Phoenicians... In any event the similarity of the literary sources suggest that child sacrifice was a very real part of Charthaginian religious practice... 2551:: anon/marduk is citing a website which specifically states (on its homepage) it does not accept the validity of any published work. Additionally, his deletion of cited material has been stated as being in dispute historically is tantamount to revisionist history. Whether or not child sacrifice happened, the claims of child sacrifice are frequent enough and supported by enough (potentially circumstantial) evidence that it has had an effect on perception of Carthaginian civilization. To not mention it leaves people wondering why the heck Carthage was so unpopular. The reader needs to understand that this campaign/reporting happened and what effect it had. The reader also needs to see the counter-arguments. the no wiki has a very good NPOV version (as an FA), the nl wiki does as well; my intent is to translate & see if that would improve the old version here, though as Richard states it wasn't bad either. 2914:. Is that it? You have no interest in the historical aspect of this, I don't have interest in debating to you why I don't like you because frankly I don't care nor do I know you and hopefully you feel the same way about me however your continued posts and reversions on this place and other articles sais otherwise: So to lob onther insult at you ill say this "Get a life": Its very clear on its meaning I think "Get a life" it means simply relax and take a nice cold shower or dump a bucket of ice on your head because you really need to calm down. You have given no other reason other then that you don't like the way I edit even tho my latest edit follows all the rules and meets all the criteria you still cling that your a hot head and you just simply like to make personal agendas targeting other people at times, which I think is silly. 203:

one hundred forty-three years and eight months. The substracting of Josephus works well, at least in this simple exercise. This sort of confirmation may indicate the possibility that he has got the total as a first-hand information, and the reader should not be bothered if other details of the list would not add up so perfectly. According to this, King Solomon started to build the temple in 1029 BCE, probably at the beginning of the 12th year after Hiram's accession. Hiram reigned 34 years (1040-1006 BCE), and died at the age of 53. Therefore, he was still alive twenty years after the beginning of Solomon's fourth year, and 1 Kings 9: 10-14 is right. The above list of Josephus confirms that Carthage was founded, or perhaps re-founded and enlarged, in 883 or 884 BCE. This took place in the seventh year after

690:

characters. Foreigners who visited the Tophet clearly did not offer Ba’al Hammon their offspring. Nor is it likely that visitors from other Punic settlements visited the Carthage Tophet to bury or sacrifice their children. One inscription, for example, mentions a woman named "Arishat daughter of Ozmik." The inscription tells us that Arishat was a "Baalat Eryx," or noble woman of Eryx, a Punic community in Sicily. It seems reasonable to assume that Arishat, while visiting the great city of Carthage, simply felt the need to pay homage to the Punic gods - or to utter a vow or make a request. These where the times of Carthage, men and Woman traveling to Carthage visiting the beautiful city it was the Sururity of peace and harmony Carthage had with the other settlements of the Mediterranean Sea.

1771:

2499:

without any Source other then spoken words, which clearly show the lack of etiquette this poster presents. It seems more likely that he has an agenda to slander and vandalize other Cultures without accepting Facts that are there and ignoring also my Citations and sources that I have presented within and outside the article.its time for this to end its a simple matter of choosing Fact over opinion and Myth, I have a belief that Knowledge is a database of Human Knowledge and I will continue to have that belief, I also know that there are a number of Trolls and Vandals littering the articles within it and I will continue to Revert there slander, thank you--

391:

nature of their commerce and the image and presence they had in antiquity as traders. All the existing sections portrayed them as warriors and baby-killers. Yes, yes, the punic wars are crucial historical events, but they were based on commercial rivalries. The commerce section should be much bigger. In fact there could be two or three: One for their maritime commerce, one for their land based trade routes in North Africa, etc etc. I placed the "general" sections before the chronological ones because having them at the bottom, as was the case previously, made it look as if they dealt with the Roman Carthage, which was a radically different place! --

3456:

and the Greek Fabricated version of events doese make clear that these people have a way with "Long Lies" and "Streched Truth" , but because we have no information from Carthage itself as in not even a measly little document as the City was mass murdered by the Romans we cant be sure of anything. What about the Berbers? Well they make it clear she did exist they have vaible historical records.. but ill leave that research to you. Perhaps when this vote is over and the thread is unlocked (That is saying if the turn out goes the right way towards TRUTH, then we can input Tid Bits that bring about a truthfull acounting of things. Signed Marduk

241:(2767 Anno Mundi) to the Milesian (Gaidelic) conquest (A.M. 2934) we can calculate 167 years of difference, so they correspond to 1183/2 and 1016/5 BCE, accordingly. From the latter he claims 133 years to Carthage's reconstruction, and 263 years to Varro's date for the foundation of Rome. Also, 1016 less 133 years yield 883 again, and 1016 minus 263 years give us the traditional 753 BCE. Considering all these, the foundation of Carthage can be placed in 883 BCE. Many modern authorities do not accept any data that had originated from antique Jewish sources or historians regarding 702:

Hammon decided to recall them to himself. Submitting to divine will, the parents returned the child, giving it back to the god according to a ritual that involved, In return, the parents hoped that Ba’al Hammon and Tanit would provide a replacement for the retroceded child - and this request was inscribed on a funeral stela, Something you will never get from the historians who make these lies, they will withhold this fact from you and you will become lost without it, iam sorry you have been lied to but its no reason for me to allow people to defile my ancient ancestry.

1783:

612:

Phoenicians were a cultural grouping that started in Phoenicia and planted colonies throughout the Mediterranean—much like the ancient Greeks, though ultimately less successfully. Colonies certainly retained strong cultural ties to their mother cities, and the oldest and greatest cities retained pre-eminence until they declined and were displaced by Carthage. But Phoenician settlement throughout the Mediterranean basin wasn't ever politically united (until Carthage united the West). As far as I'm aware, that's what the historical and archaeological record says.

698:

incinerated and their tombs were located in a separate sector, quite distinct from the burial place used for adults. This is also the case in some Islamic necropolises, where sections are reserved exclusively for the tombs of infants. Even today, Japanese children who die young, called Gizu, are placed in special areas of a temple, and they are represented by carved figurines that suggest their holy status. Great its so sad, Carthage is being persecuted because it wanted to bury its lost children in a separate place from every one else who died :( .

1779:

3439:

not presently a matter of historical record -- history not being co-extensive with possibility. So it seems the article should neither credit her without qualification, nor consign her purely to myth. Her better-known Dido aspect seems to be only partly mythological, only because the remainder is fictional. The role she plays in the Aeneid seems to have orignated with Virgil. That doesn't mean it needs to be left out of this article, but detail probably should be reserved for the Dido article and for others dealing with the Aeneid. --

31: 2510:: I don't think the current version should stand. As an outsider to this dispute, I think it is clear that Marduk has been unreasonable although his point about child sacrifice is possibly defensible. Citations are needed. I would like to see the website that has been provided by Marduk. I understand that websites are not adequate sources but I'm curious whether the website might provide any citations? Has anybody done a Google search on "Carthage" and "child sacrifice"? 1536:

language may be misconstrued, and you are not a native English speaker, consult someone who is prior to putting a potentially inflammatory point on a page. To remove all nastiness simply because 'you don't have incontrovertible proof' is revisionist history. Just make sure you specify those things that are proven facts and those things that are interpretations/assessments/beliefs which shape(d) perceptions. And even if you are a great fan of Carthage, including the

1858:

anymore, therefore we have no choice but to revert according to the editor and scholarly consensus. I suppose he didn't even bother to read the citation I randomly found on the phoenician child sacrifice. Even if some of his contributions are correct, his refusal to provide sources and engage in a constructive discussion forces us to remove them. As time passes he makes it worse for himself: Edit-warring, POV-pushing, personal attacking and the list goes on.

2737:" anyway dont let me spoil your fun. Also id like to add note that its very much probable Vedexents Sock Puppetys are very much at work here, just something to leave to wonder I suppose, the very same reason iam refraining from responding to Vedexent as I had him tied in the begining, I found out what a complete idiot he is, as the old saying "Dont argu with idiots they will bring you down to there level and then beat you with experiance".-signed Marduk 922:((quote)) Removed the mention of human sacrifice. Even if you disagree with the idea that human sacrifice occurred, and can provided evidence that it never did, such evidence should be provided along side the "misconceptions", explaining where the "misconceptions" come from, why they are probably wrong, and providing evidence for that. To be fair, the "human sacrifice" angle should have its own citations and supporting evidence as well."" ((end quote)) 2847:"edit war" started; I know the IPs are different. But as other people have noted, marduck has "tumbled addresses" repeatedly over a short period of time. As for his comment "No I have but only one ISP one Computer", that either demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is being claimed (an honest mistake), or outright ignorance of how computers work (and hey, not everyone who drives knows how an engine works either, so there is no shame in that). 548:

the city of Carthage. The men stayed behind to fight off the oncoming attack while the women and children attempted to evacuate. The men were slaughtered and most of the women and children were sold into slavery by the Romans. They proceeded to destroy the city's many monuements, statues, and buildings and burned the city to the ground. They poured salt upon the ashes of the city so that nothing would grow for a long, long time.

601:

this point onwards this article implies that in that transition Carthage became a distinct nation comprised of previously Phoenecian city-states. So - when this article discusses the expansion of Carthaginian trade, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as the expansion of the Phoenician trade? This is assuming you believe that Phoenicia describes a political body as opposed to the geographic entity on the Levant.

710:

recalled to the presence of the gods; that is why they were buried in the sanctuary. To this sanctuary came grieving parents, who gave their children back to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. Sometimes the parents would offer animal sacrifices to the gods to solicit their favor. Then they had funeral stelae carved and inscribed with vows, along with the poignant request that the divine couple grant them further offspring.

1791:

1716:

as much information as one can, if you wish to slander Carthage or Vandalize a people who don't exist anymore then I suggest you find onther platform because in Knowledge we don't tolerate that, this is a collection of "Human" Knowledge that is the purpose of Knowledge not a collection of Roman and Greek knowledge not a platform for Western ant-eastern gangs like you to slander other people and civilization's.

2430:, and well as basic wikipedia ettiquite. While I agree the version that predated Marduk's edits needed a lot of work and citation as well, I think such corrections could have been accomplished much better through discussion, citation of published works, and compromise in order to bring about a more balanced article. Instead Marduk has unbalanced the article in the 3642:

article on our watchlists will clean up after you if that seems to be needed. Frankly, it's more important that you provide sources and citations than that you provide perfect prose. Many of us can write but don't have familiarity with the academic journals. Finally, if you really feel uncomfortable dropping text into the article itself, just put it here (i.e.

557:

have changed very much under the constructions of the Romans. I notice there is a lot of myth taken for historical truth: remember always that the Roman and Greek writers are of later times and are not very much interested in telling the truth about the Carthaginians. Only archaeological research can prove what was true or not, and even that is very difficult.

1724:

and Revinist fabrications are kept as Opinions not FACTS Keep the article FACT I have Presented more Sources then the original one you no longer have any reason to vandalize I suggest you grow up and find onther platform to argue your senseless theories I also ask what ever administration is looking unto these posts take note of what is happening, thank you

668:

fire" the amount of sick and horrid imaginations this man had *shudders* This is the stuff of myth, not history. Diodorus, who was from Sicily, was probably mixing up stories about Carthage with ancient Sicilian myths - specifically the myth of the great bronze bull, built for the Sicilian tyrant Phalaris, in which the king’s enemies were roasted alive.

1749:

2277:

there favored to be elected among "There" Senate was animals in this instance a Horse as you may well know. Should I also go on about Greeks being produced as a population with vile and sickining orgy's of 7-year old children? Should I input that in as well! Hell according to you its information that's there so why not input it its worth doing so

2921:

my quote of the old saying, iam just not going to bother and he can stomp his feet and pout all he wants, my article now gives sources, cites sources and gives the facts and information on Carthaginian religion not Mythological Fictional tid bits certain people with Anti_Carthaginian biased are so bent on having there motives however is clear.

3229:

question about Elissar, grandniece of Jezebel. Is this fact or mythology? If the only source is the Bible, then we need to take it with a grain of salt. I'm not saying that the Bible is all fabrication but not everything in the Bible has been confirmed as being true. Is there supporting evidence for the Elissar/Jezebel stuff?

297:

a history text from the late 19th century, and has been propagated from there ever since. The fact that a new city was established in essentially the exact same location only a little while later (and then designated the capital of Roman Africa) also suggests that the land was not permanently ruined. :

3709:

there are a lot of details about the child sacrifice ritual that have started to tickle the skeptic in me. If, as the article says, "there is no large body of Phoenician writing that has come down to us" then how do we know these details? Did Plutarch provide all these details? Or one of the other

2909:

That's a lot of words Vedexent, a lot of words and a lot of wining, is it then no wonder I try not to bother with someone like you. Unfortunately I don't make my living on the computer like everyone else I assume, I labor and work to bring home food and make sure I do have a home. I don't even have a

2890:

guilty of having a short temper about some things, and perhaps after the "heat" got up I held his edits to a more stringent "application of the law" than I would to a complete stranger. Perhaps some of my disdain for someone who uses emotion and insults instead of discussion leaks through. I'm human;

2846:

people who seem to support anon/marduk's position is marduk and hannibal (Richard, feel free to correct me if you support "their" position); if indeed they are seperate (but very simular sounding) people. I'm not an idiot; I checked the IPs as well. I've been keeping an eye on marduck's IPs since the

2803:

Richard: Apart from an earlier insinuation that I should do marduk's work for them if they are not willing to put effort in themselves, you also insinuate that I am not "having good faith", but how much "good faith" is being shown by someone whose response to anyone who does not agree with them is to

2732:

Onther fabrication I see, well this is becoming more of a joke and a laugh then anything else. Other uses of IP? One question why are you lying? Could you explain that to me? Different IP adresses? No I have but only one ISP one Computer, of course I had forgotten the shrouded agend's people like you

2461:

It should be made clear that Marduck's expansions of Carthaginian relgion and the legend of Dido are not being objected to. What is being objected to is his/her eradication of any other cultural viewpoint of Carthage, the section on the Roman recolonization of the site after Carthage ceased to exist,

2438:

imbalance either, refused to address the criticisms people have levied against their edits, and has lapsed into simple reversion of any version not their own. I still maintain that if Marduk can provide sources, citations, and a willingness to accept and contrast opposing historical viewpoints, their

2283:

But Iam beyond that, iam also far more "Level Headed" then the like here, iam not going to stray from Facts and real information into Pesudo-History and Myths. And I will continue to fight your vandalism and Slander against Carthage, I think we should do so until you cry yourself to sleep or begin to

2272:

You have yet to cite why you are making major deletions other then one tid bit about this or "Your Dissatisfaction" with the work, well that's to bad this isn't about you, again get over yourself. Your desperate plea to undermine knowledge and information about other non western cultures is sickening

1786:

Thus the Tophet burials were not true offerings of children to the gods. Rather, they were restitutions of children or fetuses taken prematurely, by natural death. Every credible historian today agrees with this, there are still those who hate Carthage and are to sunk in on telling of Roman roads and

1778:

It is very common, all over the world, to find that children who die young, and especially fetuses, are accorded special status. Many cultures believe that these are simply not ordinary deaths. The Italian archaeologist Sabatino Moscati has pointed out that in certain Greek necropolises children were

1774:

The Carthage Tophet was a sacred sanctuary where people came to make vows and address requests to Ba’al Hammon and his consort Tanit, according to the formula do ut des ("I give in order that you give"). Each vow was accompanied by an offering of fruit for Tanit. and sacrificed Animals for Bhaal. The

1198:

No I will accuse you of editing my posts because you have, first with my header I will advise you against doing so again please. So on that point you are a vandal. My response to you wasen't already "Messed Up" in fact they made the argument pretty clear and to the point if you couldent keep up thats

933:

what you have done was simply disagree with me with the argument of that Senseless rhetoric and pointless debate should be placed on this platform? What is that, no it doesent work that way you leave history to history and place whatever "Ideas" or "Fiction" you may have of other in platforms such as

869:

Ok first of all, the misconceptions and ignorance that isent held by any credible sources nor actuall Evidence such as physical proof or even a credible literary source such as Polybius and other uncounted for historians exists for this new found claim that the Carthaginian relgion admitted Sacrafice

705:

697:

693:

600:

This article does not adequately describe the role Carthage played within the Phoenician nation. For instance, Tyre and Phoenicia went into decline around the middle of the seventh century B.C after incurring the hostility of Assyria, Carthage took control of the colonies and trade for herself. From

492:

were elected from the Carthaginian populace, and they were gifted much power, also the right to elect the Tyrant. The Tyrant would usually be a succesful military leader, however if accused of inspiring revolt to become king, would be crucified (The Carthaginians practiced crucifiction on many of its

268:

Adam: I should know better than that, too. Guess I got a little caught up in describing the destruction of Carthage. I'm removing the reference. Also, I haven't had time (and probably won't for several days) to cull the important events referenced in this article onto the various pages for individual

215:

VI, X.1 claims that David settled in Jerusalem 477 years and 6 months before its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. The latter date is traditionally 587 BCE, therefore Josephus has placed that event at the beginning of 1064 BCE. It is well-known that, after this, David was king for 33 years in Jerusalem,

3641:

Expanding on what Bridesmill and Vedexent have said, I am currently partnered with a Mexican expert on the Aztec empire. He writes as best as he can in broken English. I and other editors "clean up" behind him. You are welcome to write what you can as best as you can and those of us who have this

3624:

There used to be a section of the Roman occupation of the site. It was deliberatly removed by "Marduk of Babylon". As Brudesmill said, you can always drop chunks of text here - or even rough drafts into the article itself. Trust me - people will edit and polish if they don't like the way it reads. -

2569:

makes clear, articles should not attempt to determine "truth", but rather to reflect the consensus of reputable sources on the topic. It's clear that most historians—even if they disagree with the child sacrifice theory—consider discussion of it to be necessary, so removing such discussion from the

2498:

and Cite his source's for his outrageous remarks and blatant slander against other religious beliefs. He has given no proof nor evidence that would support his Fabrications he then gives the reason of its simply there and claimed only to back up the fact that certain information is a fabrication and

2268:

Its time for you to also get over yourself you sound like some worked up high school girl who just had her period, relax and calm down only then well I see that you have enough Reason and understanding to be argued with until then your nothing but a smart mouthed raving child. I could do without the

1857:

Agree. The anon avoids every sort of dialogue and prefers long babbling monologues which make no sense. I'm not really in the mood of explaining why I/we are not a bunch of Western-centric, Graeco-Roman fanatics who wish to propagate against an imaginary Eastern civilisation which doesn't even exist

1794:

If we begin to Belive Myths and Concuted story's from Greek Mytholigists then we may as well Belive in the Amazons and Sea serpants, I guess Herculas did go and Conquer the entire East all by himself, really know people when A enemy of a fallen people Endorses the undoing of there enemy you use your

1763:

There is no real physical proof, it is lies and bent evidence that has been found into actually saying its proof. Do you know why this is so and the reason these Lies will never be heard or released? because imagination is not physical and imagination cannot be released only by those people who hold

1588:

points out, "Xxx historians long alleged that child sacrifice was practiced here {ref}" is much more NPOV, and harder to justify removing then "child sacrifice was practiced here." Proper use of references and inline citations would make the article more balanced and less prone to such edit wars. In

713:

682:

645:

The first sentence contains the following statement: "written without vowels as QRT HDŠT." Now, while this is obviously an accurate extraction from the previous section which calls Carthage Qart-Hadasht, I'm curious whether or not it's pointed out for any reason. Is this just a quaint observation? R

390:

I don't know much about Carthage and I frankly am not that much interested in it, prefering the Etruscans and the Greeks (who were both having more peaceful relations with Carthage than we normally realise) , but it seemed totally insane to have an article on Carthaginians without any mention of the

296:

The case, for me, is made not so much on the impossibility of the act (the argument that "the Romans wouldn't do it because salt was precious"), but on the fact that no ancient source for the salting has ever been found. A very strong case has been made that the entire incident can be traced back to

3438:

That seems the only appropriate tack in general. From personal recollection only at this point, there is evidence for the historicity of the "Elissar" personage and for her relatives in the royalty of Tyre, the "metropolis" of Carthage. What role she personally played in the founding of Carthage is

3328:

Yes, this is precisely my point about Dido. I was pretty sure she was legendary like Romulus and Remus. But the English version of the article doesn't make it sound like that. If a reader knew nothing about Carthage or the Aeneid, that reader might infer from the article that she and Elissar had

2920:

Do I make personal attacks? Of course. Did I think vedxent is a disgusting person? Nahh, but he is acting pretty silly to me and even then I had planned to respond to him continually, but after seeing his comments and "Child acting" on onther article I just decided to ignore him again going back to

2864:

about it, ok? I am annoyed that someone is not trying to work within the guidelines and processes of Knowledge, and is trying to "shout the loudest and the longest" until they get their way. My 2-year-old does that. And then, to top it all off, turns around and accuses anyone who doesn't agree with

2812:

It seems to be standard tactic for any complaint leveled against marduck to then be reversed and used against anyone who doesn't agree with marduk.). How is someone who basiclly has ignored Wiki ettiquite, and the processes for third party arbitration, because it doesn't agree with their viewpoint,

2665:

Vedexent you disgust me at times, it is appernt now that anyone who will go against your rehtric and misbegotten myths will be called a troll, pathetic. Everyone please check the Edit history then check the IP you will see it is different from that of mine. Thanks for the laugh tho Vedexent. Anyone

2601:

article had numerous problems, many of them due to specific anti-Carthaginian biases of the sort Mardukanon would hide. But as with many such articles, this one was getting better. Edits were made to convey the same facts in more neutral language, to remove or qualify older assertions which general

1823:

vandalism. What you are doing, well intentioned though it may be, is. Finally, You obviously paid zero to no heed to the short, signed comments that were left for your benefit. As I mentioned before, if you want to be taken seriously, play nice - and lengthy diatribes which in essence say little to

1782:

Punic children who died young possessed a special status.They body's were burnt and buried inside an enclosure reserved for the temple of of lord Ba’al Hammon and lady Tanit. Something reserved only for the Sacred band, tho it seems the Carthaginians cared a great deal for there children why? Ba’al

1752:

Now, when we come to more credible sources, or at the least somewhat *sigh*, like the Roman historian Polybius, there is no mention of Carthaginian child sacrifice. Polybius, we know, was with the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus when the Roman destroyed the City. Polybius had no love of Carthage he

1740:

Were it not for a few classical accounts, scholars would probably not attribute the burials in the Carthage Tophet to child sacrifice. Some of the more sensational stories, such as those related by the first-century B.C. historian Diodorus Siculus, have been picked up in modern times and passed off

1715:

Your attempts of censorship has been noted and I have reported that to the Administration as well, I advise you two lunatics to either calm down relax or just simply take a cold shower. Learn some common courtesy. I Will return my last edit as I have inputted into it a Wealth of sources and hoarded

1626:

I'm not going to repeat all the good points made above. I agree that child sacrifice should be mentioned because important sources have recorded the practice. If there are verifiable sources who dispute it, that should be mentioned as well. The anon has a valid point but is being unreasonable in

1526:

Part of history is the history itself. And if part of that history is people saying things which have little or no foundation in truth, but which are believed anyways, that does not legitimize removing these things from the record either because we consider them POV or we don't agree with them. If

1229:

And inserting view that are without Fact's or proof is also "Citing views without Evidence", As I have said before keep this a base of information not a platform for people to debate "what if" and "how else". That can be done here, but within the article there should only be facts, actual knowledge

889:

I have removed the spam and garbage of references to Greek and Roman Civilization, I don't think Carthaginians care for what the Greeks or Romans think of them. This just causes more space and spam to be implemented needlessly if you want to have a set of facts stating what these two civilization's

701:

671:

659:

556:

I have made some minor changes, as far as my knowledge goes of Carthage and it's history. As to the foundation in 814 BC I have left that as there is no definite knowledge of when and how the city was founded. The Roman destruction of the city was quite thorough. Also other Punic cities in the west

547:

In 149 B.C., it was learned that the local Carthaginian government was attempting to regain influence and power in the local area. Rome did not want to give them that opportunity so they responded by sending Scipio Aemilianus, adopted son of Scipio, with an army over to North Africa to lay siege to

505:

for tyrant -- that's a Greek word, not derived from Tyre, and if it's used in reference to a Carthaginian office, I'm sure its a translation, not an actual Phonician word -- makes me suspect the whole thing. Hopefully more knoweldgeable ppl than I can judge how much of this is correct and how much

202:

tells that the whole time from the reign of Hirom (Hiram), till the building of Carthage, amounts to the sum of 155 years and 8 months. Since then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the twelfth year of the reign of Hirom, there were from the building of the temple, until the building of Carthage,

3455:

Again a bold face claim to historical accuracy: We dont know if Queen Dido Existed, Queen Dido of Phoencian Capital (Lebanon) and voaged to North Africa were she settled Carthage. We dont know if its a Legend so then we dont know if its true. She seems to have existed wether the Roman Fake version

3364:

Hmmm, not so sure about Dido - quite well documented - only the fuzzy line between history and legend remains, & IMHO it's on the legend side of the equation, but still germane to how Carthage fits in global context. This Postinus/Postinius individual is the one who has me curious - other than

2781:

should mention Roman Carthage, including both Cyprian and Belisarius. The major problem with the previous edit by Vexedent is the waffling on citizenship, and both versions have much the same text. Much of the material the anon includes on Carthaginian religion appears to be sourced (insofar as it

1748:

Here is Diodorus’s account of how the Carthaginians sacrificed their children: "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with

1723:

There is a claim Carthage once floated in mid AIR, should we PUT THAT IN TO. There's a claim that the Egyptians were actually taught how to build pyramids by the survivors of Atlantis why not go the Egyptian article and wine over there because *Gasp* they don't mention that in there. Pesdu-History

1711:

However this gang is not out for facts, nor clear truth they detest my goal to try to keep this article as spam and garbage free as possible while at the same time provided sources. They are nothing more then Historical Apologists out slander Carthage I have seen this before I have seen how people

1540:

about nastiness should be in your interest in helping others understand why Carthage has a bad (potentially undeserved) image. In reference to the above, this is not just about Carthaginians - it is about human relations - indeed, it is Very Important what Greeks, Romans, and everyone else thought

667:

520:

originally borrowed from a non-Greek language. There are competing candidates, but I've never seen it linked to the name of Tyre. Moreover, though the Greek term lacked the obligatory negative sense of the modern “tyrant,” it always as far as I know carried the sense of a ruler whose authority was

433:

Completely ignorant about Carthage, I wondered why there isn't a city there now. The article implies that the *ruins* of Carthage are a tourist attraction, but it never explains how the city was finally destroyed. Could someone please expand upon the "finally overrun by the rising forces of Islam"

259:

Is the story about salting the land around Carthage true? I have also read that is more of a legend than truth...they actually just threw a handful of salt on the ground to symbolize that no one would be allowed to live there after it was destroyed. (Now I'll have to see if I can find where I read

899:

Secondly, that isent an essay its the central point for historians today who are putting down these false claims and myths who have been unsurprisingly traded for the truth, and guess what one of them has paid you a visit get used to it times are changing people aren't as ignorant and "stupid" as

2305:

Iam quiet sure it does, well as much as I would love to continue to Yammer on here with you and make silly little comebacks for I would perfer to keep my maturity so I leave you to wallo in your own words, have fun. Also people please take note of what has happend in the posts above me Judge for

2276:

We should just put in every single last myth and fabrication because its there? Then would you join me in the Roman and Greek article please, ive always wanted to inquire about the myth told by let me remind you "Other cultures" that the Romans enjoyed roasted babies and what about the one where

1719:

Carthage did not sacrifice children there is nothing no proof, no credibility, no finds, there is absolutely nothing, people like you and historians like diodorus are a disease in the world perverting history perverting texts perverting everything mankind has worked for, has strived for to bring

1684:

Regular Editors: I sense that there is not much sense debating this ad nauseum, as all concerned seem to agree to the NPOV & referencing concepts *exept* anon who does not want to play, although some of what he has added (re. ancent religion, the Carthaginian pantheon) could be useful. If he

113:

While there's mention of sacrifice, perhaps it's also worth bearing in mind the relatively high infant mortality rate of the time. It would also not seem inconceivable to store the remains of the cremated children together in a dedicated crematorium. While we cannot know for certain, some have

3600:

I'm an undergraduate classicist writing a report/paper on Roman Carthage. I've got plenty of sources/citations, so I can provide some information that the page is lacking (i.e. information about Carthage after the Punic Wars, things like the Antonine Baths, amphitheatre, naval port, &c). My

3338:

There are lots of legendary people who may be based on real people but there is not necessarily a strong similarity between the legend and the real person. In these cases, we need to give the reader some indication that we are not talking about someone as clearly historical as Julius Caesar or

1790:

Carthaginians did not sacrifice their children to Ba’al Hammon in the Tophet. This open-air site, accessible to all who cared to visit the place, was a sacred sanctuary presided over by Ba’al Hammon and his consort Tanit. The human remains found in the urns buried in the Tophet were of children

709:

611:

Well if you want to emphasise that Carthage took control of an already-extant Phoenician trade network in the Western Mediterranean, of which they were themselves a part, I think that would be fine. I'm not sure what you mean by "believe that Phoenicia describes a political body", though. The

2602:

expert consensus find insupportable, to add newer assertions with good citations of support -- in short to improve the article according to general Knowledge guidelines. Mardukanon's version discards much of value (the content of a given belief may not be factual, but the belief's existence is

2260:

Vedexent its time for you to calm down, if you haven't noticed your making an ass of yourself. As much as I would really love to continue this raving with you in which you seem to only be screaming at the top of your lungs is just pointless. You seem to be dodging the fact that I have provided

1535:

be provided - for this kind of subject, www.whyIhateCarthaginians.com is probably not a good source. Be careful that the above NPOV is not twisted by poor language usage or POV pushing as "Child sacrifice was practiced here as attested to by the Xxx historians". If you are concerned that your

937:

I do agree with you however that before my edit there was a staggering file of misconception and blant out lies, removing those was a much needed cleaning that has been done and with your perversion of "restoring" it to its previous state aimed towards me and with no intent to add anything for

378:

In the above question the Scipio who conquered Hannibal and died in 183 BCE is Publius Cornelius Scipio who was given the name Africanus for his defeat of Hannibal and Carthage and is referred to as Scipio Africanus Major. In 146 BCE Carthage was utterly desrtroyed by the Romans led by Publius

3228:

I wanted to ask about the "Dido" bit. Is this fact or mythology? I think the "Dido" bit is just something that Virgil made up for the Aeneid and is part of the "creation myth" for Carthage. If my inexpert opinion is true, then the "Dido" section should be moved to a separate section. Same

1770:

The texts of the inscriptions in the Carthage Tophet suggest that the sanctuary was open to everyone, regardless of nationality or social status. We know that Greek-speaking people made use of the sanctuary, for instance, since some inscriptions have the names of the gods transcribed in Greek

1735:

Historians Like Diodorus have to be the absouletly Worst and Vile of all the Historians in the history of mankind. Never has a staright out Myth made by one single man, One Single Man has been converted into more Lies and Belivble Fiction like the False Claim that the Carthaginians Sacraficed

1515:

I think everyone would agree that this argument does not at all justify such large scale edits. The anon has obviously a personal agenda on the topic and comes from a biased perspective. As long as his edits are unsourced, we should keep reverting him until he understands how wikipedia works.

941:

this was a poor excuse for an edit, I would like to continue to Edit the whole of this page I would be able to do this in better time if the disgruntled poster above me not pant and pount about his own personal view on how things should be conducted, the guideline for writing facts is simple,

925:

So you want this base for information on the Carthaginian people to be a platform for this type of debate and senseless arguments, no it doesen;t work that way. You cant instill Firm information with personal views of anti-Carthaginian or misconception theory's into a Central for Carthaginian

689:

654:

145:

of the whole ancient world. The editor of this article has found four different dates in four books on the same bookshelf, in a library of a Brazilian university. They are ranging between 900 to 800 BCE, mainly round figures, indicating approximate dates. The alleged traditional foundation of

132:

I removed from the page the following, since as far as I can see, it is the author's own opinion rather than a general theory among historians, and as such I think falls under 'Knowledge is not a place for original research'. If it is placed in the article, it should in my opinion at least be

99:

I've seen numerous sites that also describe reports of child sacrafice as potentially erroneous. At the very least that should probably be stated, or since it appears to be a questionable (among archaeologists) conclusion, merely that child sacrifice is one possible explanation for graves of

3416:

Yes, but - by saying 'according to xyz', to a lot of people that implies that we are citing a fact (e.g. 'According to Pasteur, bacteria can be described as...'); in the case of Dido I think that scientific consensus is on the side of 'hasn't been proven/not supported by credible physical or

2680:

Sorry, but anon comments should count here as much as they do in AFD. please note Marduk uses a 'wide' range of IP addresses, sometimes several in the space of an hour. So unless we have the opposite of sockpuppeteering going on (many people claiming to be the same?), and given the nature of

207:'s accession, by his escaping sister Elissa, as Josephus tells. His father Mettinus (Matgenus or Mutgo, the priest of Baal, who is Mattan in 2 Kings 11: 18) and Queen Athaliah were slain in 891 or 890 BCE. Therefore, the Bible and the non-Christian Josephus who has cited these from Dius and 3738:

by the Romans - who hated and feared the Carthaginians enough to wipe them out - or it takes a minor or ancient (compared to he Carthaginians themselves) practice and exaggerates (this is possible - many neolithic cultures did it, and vestiges survived into Bronze and early Iron ages - see

1671:

Anon: In addition to the contentious bits which you are obviously passionate about, you seem to have something useful to contribute, and much of what you have which may be useful is getting reverted because you refuse to participate in discussion, follow WP etiquette, and agree to need for

1527:

child sacrifice is an issue, use a line like "Xxx historians long alleged that child sacrifice was practiced here {ref}" This allows the reader to understand why people from Xxx held certain atitudes, and why/how political relations developed over time. What is important to note, is that

3277:

page here is just stuffed with a good bibliography, as well as links to many good etexts, including both classical and more modern literary treatments of the Dido legend. At least a place to start digging. I think the "historical fact" of Dido is a slippery as that of Romulus. The origin

1707:

That last edit of mine was just the stumbling block of the sources I plan to present if you actually read through it and made an effort not to try to vandalize wikipedia and Carthage then I would have had more today to bring about even more and edit the edit's I have made to revise them.

1641:

The anon is ignoring the discussion and procedure, and is just reverting to their version. Is it possible or desirable to get a lock on the page? I know that since they are anon it is tricky to ban them, since they don't have the "courage of their convictions" enough to use an account. -

3417:

documentary evidence' although a grain of truth arguably exists; I would prefer citing it as 'Legend recorded in the writings of xyz' or some such. I think to be honest, we have to state where things are hard facts and where some fuzziness exists and where there's more fuzzy than form.

3543:

This article needs to mention the campaign of Rome against Carthage and its lesson for History and Economics classes--you know, the whole Cartago Delenda Est stuff...? Maybe a mention of spreading salt over the fields upon being raized? Even the destruction of the city? Mention

2317:

Admins thank you for hearing my plea just now, you have acted in good time and in good faith, again it is this reason Knowledge will always remain as the center for Human knowledge not Pedu myths and fabrications, you have restored Facts and Level headed Reason within this debate.

948:((Thank you for inserting a header within your reply's (to the poster below me), thats a trait of common courtesies iam happy you dicided to follow along I am also happy youve dicided to refrain from editing my posts actions like that are what we call Vandalisim))--sighned Marduk 3315:

Not the foggiest - translated from the NL wiki - the NO wiki doesnt mention this source. It may be 'Postinius'; but he doesn't come up too much either. I'll have a look on ebscohost when I get back to the office. Myth/history - not just the bronze age suffering from that one ;-)

1872:

Agreed people such as you who have ignored my posts and my citings, you have also ignored the debate in which I have offered. The trolls here have a clear agenda to slander other people and in this matter slander Historical Facts, they would prefer to have fictions,theories, and

3167:

And here is the most scholarly citation I could find. In the Stanford Journal of Archeology, Brien Garnand comes down in favor of the view that Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice but, in the process, clearly documents the fact there is a long history of debate about the

2670:

Vedexent, I agree with Marduk. I also checked the Edit history and the IPs are different. That doesn't mean that Hannibal isn't Marduk but Knowledge guideline is to assume good faith. I think you need to chill. Your emotional involvement is a bit too high for your health.

2939:

To everyone else, it is not to late to change your vote, you would rather side with Myth then Facts? If so then I have wasted my time with wikipedia, I hope thats not true and Ill wait a little longer until this vote is finished and the people who havent casted, please cast

2001:

Reverting vandalisim done by trolls such as you is clearly not prohibited and thank god. I will continue to repute your Vandalisim and slander of knowledge, I suggest you re-read the rules you have some more to learn. Again I warn you of Your Actions its for your own benfit

2381:

Whee... ok, the edit war pissed off a Sysop enough to lock it. Additionally, Marduck managed to revert just prior to the lock. The only way the lock is coming off is if there is a consensus built up in the talk page as to how the page should read. Marduk seems insistent on

1202:

You ask me was someone inserting texts now this is laughable, that someone is you, please go and check where you signed your name "Vedexent" or whatever unto that insertion before again I have added to it a header and a warning, please do not insert text into my posts.

1499:

for other people to have input into the issue. Perhaps some sort of wikipedia community consensus can be reached as to how culturally biases anecdotes, stories, and views can be incorporated into the article, or alternativly whether they should be left out entirely. -

1258:. This is a database of Facts and Real Historical inquiry not a platform for Revinist theories and Pesdu-historical inquiry. Therefor the section on Carthaginian religion will stay as I have put it citing facts and without you editing there should be sources as well, 2597:: By it's nature, Knowledge suffers from a variety of biases, but editors should assume a biased article or section reflects uncorrected base material or benign ingnorance until it can be determined otherwise, rather than immediately launching a "counter-attack." The 536:

It's nonsense. Tyrant was a Greek term roughly meaning "autocrat", someone given (or assuming) complete power for a period of time, without the perjorative connotation attached to "dictator" today. A tyrant could be voted in, or out, at need. (Or killed, at need...)

3570:. The famous salting doesn't seem to be mentioned until relatively recently, and much other evidence makes it unlikely. So it should be mentioned along with all the things for which Carthage is famous, while making it clear which are historical and which are not. -- 3502:

It appears the request to have the page changed from full to semi protection got accidently erased in a "tidying up" of old and "responded to" requests. I left a message for the Admin that did it. I won't put that text back in until I hear back from them though. -

2265:, you have shown nothing but ranting and wining, making notes and complaints handed to yourself which I think is silly and humor's to say the least if not a bit strange. Its time for you to re-read the rules I would suggest the section of "Making Major Deletions". 3713:

Once again, I'm not going to pull a "Marduk" and insist that these details be excised from the article. However, I'm curious what the source of all these details is. When I figure out how, I'm going to insert a bunch of "citation needed" tags in this section.

216:

till 1031. (Before his death, he appointed Solomon as king in 1032 BCE.) Returning to the chronology of Carthage, Greek authors like Theophylus, Menander and others give slightly different regnal years for some rulers. Those numbers combined with the figures of

881:

We should just revert the Cleaning of a Detested Wiki input of say the Greeks because I belive and there is a theory that some of there populations grow up with horns on there heads (As does one of there "Truthful" historians claim) because its out there, no!

1699:

You people are clearly insane ranting and raving at the top of your lungs, the main reason I decided it was pointless to argue and debate a gang who are clearly Graco-Roman Apologist with an axe to grind and are hiding under a shroud that "They Need Sources"

328:

I came to this article looking for a description of the popular phrase "sack of Carthage". I've managed to understand, from other sources, that this happened in 146 BC. Is this accurate? Should this be put in the article to help the casual reader/researcher?

1962:- you are way beyond violating that, and demonstrate a total disregard for either wiki etiquette or process. Hiding as an anon while using the name of a god in your commentary is not exactly good faith either. Your behavior will result in you being blocked. 1615:

by mr X, Y and Z that they did so. We're not interested in proving whether this allegation is true or not, we're only interested in mentioning that it exists in records. As editors, we're not in position of making original research and drawing conclusions.

1218:

My opinion on certain matters do not concern you nor this page about Carthage, its people,religions,structures,foundations,settlement's, and government, in other words the opinions of the "Greeks" and "Romans" do not matter nor should be a reference for

2321:

Now if the poster Vedexent would please stop making personal threats and attacks on me I would be happy to answer his "Complaints" if he wills please also let him feel free to debate this matter with me, I have an open ear and I will practice patience

2084:

Also, be advised that your last statement verges on threat. Not quite a threat, but I would still be careful if I were you. Threatening people directly is one of those things that gets the time, place and IP address of the offender sent to their ISP's

2494:: Its time for this to end, the vandals who continue to slander and bring about Fabrications as a replacement for Facts and Truth. The poster Vedexent has done nothing other then make personal threats and attacks aimed at me and has yet to provide a 1211:

A good point you made I will need to cite facts, so what I need you to do is stop acting like a child, so instead of stomping your foot on the ground and Removing the edits I make, allow me the time to not have to yammer on with you here and "Cite"

2080:

I doubt very much that the arbitration commitee would be impressed by your case. As an anology, if you swear at the Baliff, insult the judge, kick all the lawyers in the room, and pee in the witness stand, is it likely that your case will go well?

3601:

concern is that, being new here, I am not well able to write the additions. Can someone work with me? I've read the Wiki-help articles on how to write on Knowledge, but honestly, I'm not comfortable trying to tackle something this big on my own.

1559:

I'm not sure whether I have a right to comment here, being involved in the original dispute, but I'll toss in my 2 cents. I think the anon has a valid point in that the allegations of child sacrifice cannot be proven. However, I fully agree with

675:

Nor does the Roman historian Livy, a more reliable contemporary of Diodorus. Livy was relatively well informed about Carthage, yet he was not so affectionate toward the city as to cover up what would have been in his eyes the end for his enemy.

1756:

1403:

take the sources tag off. If you can show the multiple historical sources, what other culture's views are/were about Carthage, what they say, and what their biases are, I will gladly take off the neutrality template. In other words, if you can

1226:((quote))removing views that you disagree with, without supporting evidence, is vandalism. It will be reverted, and/or referred to an administrator for arbitration, and if you continue to do this, you can be banned from Knowledge.((end quote)) 3382:

Agreed, a discussion of Dido is as valid to place in the Carthage article as a discussion of Romulus and Remus are in an article on Rome. However, is there any need to classify her in the article as one or the other? Rather than saying "Dido

2719:- for the obvious reasons. I think the only reason Marduk hasn't registered an ID is in order to avoid various wp violations and eventually decrease the chance of getting himself blocked (which is extremely high). I think that says it all. 1838:

I propose that we stop debating it. We just keep reverting it and/or have admins block the IPs when they violate the "3 revert rule". Eventually "Marduk" will get tired and go away. If not, hey, that is why they invented monitoring bots. -

2813:

behaving better? I do not claim my responses have been perfect! Far from it! I have a short temper at times, I admit it, and some of the things I have said, and attitudes I have expressed would have been better left unvoiced. But can you

2764:- The anon's version is a step backwards for this article. Citations should have better references than websites, and there is absolutely no reason to think the rewritten version is better than the version that stood before the dispute. - 2245:

Does anyone know of some good sources for the archeology of Carthage, and Carthaginian cities? I think including that aspect could really improve the article - especially the contrast with the somewhat biased histoical accounts we have -

1680:

is not going to do either your reputation or credibility any good - if you get yourself blocked or the page gets protected, all the potential value you could add here would be wasted. Please don't get yourself categorized as a Vandal.

1809:

Firstly, I hope that you are not actually referring to individuals here as lunatics, or as 'liars' for citing well-established beliefs - that is blatant WP:NPA no matter how you cut it. Secondly, nn website does not really qualify as

646:

ds t br sm rlvnc t smthng? Mn, lthgh t s knd f fn t wrt lk ths, 'm wndrng f thr s pnt t t (Or does it bear some relevance to something? I mean, although it is kind of fun to write like this, I'm wondering if there is a point to it).

913:

Finally, My edit was a much needed cleansing of this sad excuse for a central point of information. What I did was remove the Rhetoric and pseudo-history and purify it to being straight to the point and free of garbage and unneeded

694:

presence of the incinerated bones of very young children, infants and even fetuses is puzzling. If the Tophet was not a cemetery (as the presence of animal bones suggests), why do we find infants and fetuses buried in a sanctuary?

1775:

1818:

child sacrifice (as well as an individual's argument agianst) You can't use your sources selectively - doing so is blatant POV. Thirdly, Reverting unacredited disputed anonymous edits which remove cited agreed upon material is

890:

view on things or whatever then do it in a separate section in fact ill do that for you and I encourage the poster above me to edit it and add in his own facts I also tell him to remember FACTS not Theory's or Ideas but FACTS

2786:

sourced) to Phoenicia, and should be a separate article. On child-sacrifice, I agree with Lokshin: widely made claims should be discussed, not suppressed; verifiable statements by debunkers should be part of the discussion.

245:

times, claiming that all their records are false. The present editor cannot accept their views, and believes that most of those Jewish historical information is true and correct, providing an important framework to supoport

2666:

else who is reading this madness before you, Facts being challanged by Myth's if you have taken it upon yourself to bring truth to things please first unlike me create an account then cite your vote, thank you. ---Marduk

3773:

Dig into some of those sources that Richard found, and even the debate on Phonecia.org that Marduk listed. There are alternate explanations as well. I don't know if the issue can be conclusively determined either wat. -

900:

they were a few hundred years ago, Carthage didn't sacrifice humans unlike there enemy Rome, either find (*Sigh*) proof and evidence to convert myths to reality or don't pervert information to try and continue this trend

663:

The classical sources are unreliable? What if all the evidence regarding the burials either from literary sources or archaeological excavations is unreliable or inconclusive? Which they are unreliable and inconclusive.

1744:

2029:

to add massive, uncited rewrites, and unilaterially remove material, you will continue to be reverted. The admininstrator I've been talking about has also said that the pages will be locked for a few weeks (at least).

1736:

Children. Unlike Rome Carthage did not Sacrafice Human Beings. Why did he creat myths of such a scale well no one knows Diodorus might have been insane he might have been a madmen, but this is for sure he was sick.

655:

579:

2) Another account is given of the local fauna, including an encounter with gorillas (a name given by the Carthaginians). A gorilla skin was taken and adorned the wall above the Carthaginian throne for many years.

1045:

removing views that you disagree with, without supporting evidence, is vandalism. It will be reverted, and/or referred to an administator for arbitration, and if you continue to do this, you can be banned from

1685:

continues without engaging in reasonable discourse, I would say I can add nothing more except a suggestion to take this to Admin for appropriate block/protect for vandalism. (probably sooner rather than later)

309:

I have no special skills in history. If there is no source before the 19th is probably mythical. For what I know about the geography the region I think is that the economic argument as presented on that page

3689:

to edit the article for awhile. I'll participate in discussions here - heck I don't even mind doing refernce research for other people's questions - but I won't be touching the article itself for awhile. -

1651:

We have to keep reverting him until he respects wikipedia procedures by responding to our comments and/or providing sources. If he continues to edit-war then we should seek for a lock and maybe even a ban.

2009:

I suppose this declaration proves that you are a new editor who needs to go through the WP:POLICIES before edit-warring. Alternatively, you can keep reverting under this illusion and see what will happen.

726:

about conventions for indenting and responding in Knowledge. It is clear you do NOT know the conventions concerning talk pages here - which you can find on almost ANY talk page here in Knowledge. I would

2443:

into the existing article, and possibly could contribute greatly to the balancing of the artcile. Their motives are not wrong, but their lack of sources, and their "edit war" approach is unacceptable. -

2294:

Thank you for that. It rather neatly sums up your character. Now let the nice people vote on consensus below, as per the lock template advice. Neither you or I gets final say on how the page will be. -

484:, a word probably originating from the Phoenecian capital, Tyre, from which Carthage came, a rank much like that of the Consul, or less similar to the rank of President. The tyrant was elected from the 2280:

Can anyone give me a source to this bile as well as I think it will be helpful when I get around to the Roman Article and the Greeks as well, of course like vedexent has said "its worth putting up".

834:

their edits. This is a shame, as they have added some good material as well - specifically they expanded the sections on Dido and the Carhaginian religious practices, which are actually constructive.

516:

I doubt I qualify as an expert either, but I'd say you made the right call. The passage is somewhat incoherent and littered with misspellings on top of the dubiousness of its content. Greek τυραννος

2895:

claimed, I can back up if asked to (or I will retract it an apologize a point if I cannot). If and when marduk can back up his own accusations of "threats" and "personal attacks" by providing links

2154:

to do with Carthage and just an internal Knowledge navigations tool. It's rather like deciding you don't like the number 42 and go around ripping out street signs that have that number. Bizzare. -

2119:

Because allegations of human sacrifice were made by other cultures, it is a valid point to mention in the article. The allegation is perhaps unfair, we have already stated that it may very well be

3473:

Vedexent has asked that the page protection be lifted and changed to "semi-protection". This would prevent new users and anonymous users from editing. I have added my support to his request.

2422:: I don't think the current version should stand. The reasons behind my opinion should be cliear to anyone reading the talk page. Marduk has not shown any willingness to provide citations a la 312:] is a wrong view. The only valid question to see if that was possible is how many people, how many chariots and how many time to carry free salt from lake Tunis ? You know there is an article 117:

Im not sure if this would be the right area, but I was wondering if there is anything on this website or any other website that can adequately give information about any landmarks of Carthage.

686:

The Carthage Tophet, like other Tophets in Sicily and Sardinia, was not a necropolis. It was a sanctuary of the Punic god Ba’al Hammon. Not one of these inscriptions, however, mentions death

2748:

that Marduk is "sock-puppeting". It is also policy to "assume good faith" on Knowledge. But I extend good faith only until someone repeatedly violates it. I have offered, repeatedly, to work

2699: 2579: 2366:

BTW, let any who care to read the edit log, and your statements on this talk page, judge for themselves, from your own words, whether or not you have and open ear and practice patience. :D -

1767:

The Carthage Tophet, like other Tophets in Sicily and Sardinia, was not a necropolis. It was a sanctuary of the Punic god Ba’al Hammon. Not one of these inscriptions, however, mentions death

660:

as the entire truth. In the 19th century, for instance, Gustave Flaubert described Punic child sacrifices in his novel Salammbô; he had no evidence at all, except for the classical sources.

1741:

as the entire truth. In the 19th century, for instance, Gustave Flaubert described Punic child sacrifices in his novel Salammbô; he had no evidence at all, except for the classical sources.

679:

Neither the classical sources nor the Quranic or Biblical passages provide conclusive evidence concerning the events that took place in the Carthage Tophet. What about the physical facts?

442:

The basic reason is that the Arabs founded the city of Kairouan to the south (which soon became the main African city of the Arab Caliphate), rather than building up or rebulding Carthage.

1760:

Neither the classical sources nor the Quranic or Biblical passages provide conclusive evidence concerning the events that took place in the Carthage Tophet. What about the physical facts?

1251:

Why should we choose his over what is revised to bring Clean and spam free article about Carthage, of course I can see how a Graco-Roman Apologist such as yourself would contend otherwise

878:

Are you saying We should just put and allow Psedu-History and revinist theories because you say so or because as you have plainly pointed out and thankfully admitted is Misconception, no!

1254:

There is no evidence for Sacrifice taking place in Carthage, there is no proof, no evidence, no finds or literary sources which would conclude that there was sacrifice in Carthage, hence

521:

both unrestrained and an interruption to the normal order, so this Anonymous' description of the office makes no sense. The worst thing about the passage, though, is that it was written

576:

1) One nautical account from Carthage describes seeing a coastal volcano, which was not otherwise to be found anywhere along the African coast within closer reach of Carthage westward.

146:

Carthage took place in 814 BCE. This may come from a misunderstanding, a relative date before Rome's foundation. This is actually the birthdate of Cartage's constitution, according to

2865:

Marduck of "raving". Marduk says he is not responding because I'm a complete idiot (remind me again which one of is using personal insults?); I havn't seen any evidence that they are

3747:

did it). I think the emphasis on it is probably Roman and/or Greek propaganda. Still, it should get mentioned, IMHO, as long as the questionability of its truth is also explained. -

3182:

I'm not saying that Brien Garnand's position is the gospel truth. I don't think you can understand this debate without understanding the history of the debate that Garnand provides.

1199:

not my problem also you have yet to respond to them you are simply here ranting you haven't made an effort to repute my post but yet even so you edit my edit without a clear reason.

379:

Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus who was given the name Africanus and is referred to as Scipio Africanus Minor to distinguish him from his adoptive grandfather Scipio Africanus (Major).

3486: 2694: 2574: 1848:

Agree - reluctantly. I had rather hoped that Anon Marduk, whoever he/she is, would have engaged in debate, but hey, we offered & tried. Go for it.00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1248:

First of all mine are not substantiated it is your editing that "clean washing" the article I edit I have noted this and I will be reporting it to the Proper Administration.

107:

Yup, originally there were 4 paragraphs on child sacrifice, I just deleted two. Doubts should definitely be mentioned, and the section on Carthage proper should be expanded.

2690:

Keep in mind that Marduk seems to edit predominantly from AOL IPs, so there's really no way to tell whether it's him or not; he could be switching adresses with every edit.

1176:

In short, I think refernecing and citing this article, along with some good, neutral, professional, editing could really help this article out. - 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3582:

LOL- It also be nice to put alot of mention in the obliteration of those pesky iberian tribes, if the vote gotes well we can have all the mentions we want.--Signed Marduk

2852:

Do I have an emotional investment in this issue? Yes, a little. But not because "I have to be right" but because someone is trying to "pull a fast one", and assumes we're

1490: 124:

Legitimate classical historians cited sacrificial practices in Carthage, and there are also legitimate concerns over their accuracy. Both side should be covered in brief.

843:

The article may have been heavily and unfairly slanted against Carthage prior to the edits, and could use editing. Most Knowledge articles can. Slanting it blatantly the

3306:

For my own interest - do you have any information on who Postinus was? I did some Google'ing - but the best "hits" seem to be mirrors of the foreign language Wikis. -

362:

In the first section, Hanno is said to have sailed down to Sierra Leone, while the third section says he may have passed the Cape of Good Hope. Which one is correct?

186:, Volumes XV-XVI. The date 146 BCE is not debated by any scholar. Therefore, reckoning with 737 full years, Carthage was founded in 883 or 884 BCE. Josephus Flavius 717: 2135:

In other words, according to the rules of Knowledge, and academic research and presentation in general, those "points" (not facts, they are disputed, but points)

1309:

You have REPEATEDLY taken out points that don't agree with your point-of-view. You have taken out points, and you have NOT provided counter arguments in the text

2474:

It seems that anon/marduck's own source listed in his version of the article, phoenicia.org, supports the article's orginal "coflicting versions" approach. See

1511:

I have removed the spam and garbage of references to Greek and Roman Civilization, I don't think Carthaginians care for what the Greeks or Romans think of them.

114:

suggested that, since Rome managed to raze the place to the ground, there would have been little objection to a little "revisionism" on the part of the Romans.

3209:. I think the potential is there and therefore we should not get so wrapped up in the child sacrifice dispute that we stop improving the rest of the article. 1631: 2353:

provide links to those "personal threats"? Threatening people is serious here in Knowledge. I'm curious if you can provide links to some of those threats? -

847:

way, and ripping out views you don't agree with, without providing counter-arguments in text, and simply censoring out the opposing view, is unacceptable. -

1554: 1545: 1144:

What the hell? Only one person has other than me has been editing this talk page. Why the hell are you editing your own arguments - and you're referring to

3197: 1496: 369: 190:(Against Apion), Book I, 17-18 contains an important list of Phoenician rulers, including some high priests of Baal. One can read the complete text at the 2810:"Vedexent you disgust me at times, it is appernt now that anyone who will go against your rehtric and misbegotten myths will be called a troll, pathetic." 1605: 1572:

expansions to the Carthaginian pantheon, and the founding legend of Dido. I also think they they (perhaps indirectly) point out the fact that the article

1504: 2049:

be incorporated into the Wiki article without violating any of the guidelines. Instead you chose to "steamroll" over everyone, and be abrasive and nasty,

561: 330: 1520: 3710:

Roman historians? If so, then we should say so by writing something like "according to Plutarch, the nobility raised servant children for sacrifice".

3072:

format? At least so they can be located by other people, no need to do full bibliographic enties (Livy, Book 1 - possibly adding 12-51, or John Adam's

3218: 759: 3705:

No, I'm not challenging the truth of child sacrifice. That was Marduk's soapbox. However, as I re-read the sections on child sacrifice here and in

3700: 3232:

If this Dido and Elissar stuff is not clearly fact, I propose that we move it to a section titled something like "Carthage in Classical Literature".

627:

Given the fame of Carthage as a seafaring power, I'm surprised so little attention is paid her navy. For instance, she pioneered the co-operation of

583:

Perhaps you have reason to question the arrival of Carthaginians in West Africa, but you didn't present them. Please do so, or let the entry stand.

3784: 3720: 2899:

then I will retract and apologize for them. Until that point, I will treat such "accusations" with all the concern I think they are worth: none. -

159: 3605: 2707: 1429:

if Carthage sacrificed babies or not - what I DO care about is people making massive, apparently ideologically based, re-writes of articles when

459: 428: 2644:

Knowledge uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion.

1017:

No offense, but I am assuming the English is not your first language as your arguments are quite convoluted, but I will try and respond to them.

3793: 2336:

not read the "(Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)" part of the template. You got lucky in timing. Nothing more. -

649: 573:

I am reintroducing the bit about Carthaginians having reached as far as Sierra Leone/Nigeria. There are good reasons for believing they did:

3767: 3670: 3615: 3585: 3369: 3351: 3260: 2791: 2638:

that anon/marduck is involved in an edit war about, suspicious? :) Bad Marduck - you're not supposed to stuff the ballot box, you know? From

2025:

It went to artibration. We consulted one of the admins. You are free to take the issue to the "arbitration commitee" if you disagree. If you

616: 2886:

to some of these - as I don't trust quotes in this matter. I have recieved nothing. I assume this means that he is incapable of doing so. I

3751: 3679: 3662: 3493: 2978:

Hahahaha you really do enjoy being an idiot dont you, well iam just happy I finnaly shuted you up,.... guess thats that. LOL -signed Marduk

2539: 1593:

of the points of the anon editor, just the personal agenda they seemed to be pursuing in their edits, and that they seemed to be replacing

951: 3443: 2515:

I like Vedexent's last version which put forth the evidence for child sacrifice and suggested that there was an alternate interpretation.

2123:, in which case the opposing archelogical evidence that you seem so adamant exists should be mentioned in the Bibliography and cited a la 1152: 1114: 979: 3629: 3421: 3403: 3365:

several wikis and several very obscure ghits, I can find nothing - hence will do some digging in meatspace & academic search engines.

3298: 2723: 672:

fought against the city. His evidence would have been decisive. But he does not make the least allusion to child sacrifice at Carthage.

1753:

fought against the city. His evidence would have been decisive. But he does not make the least allusion to child sacrifice at Carthage.

3694: 3611:

Welcome. You can always dump chunks of stuff here, or just post the references & outline of what you feel would help on the page.

3507: 3245: 3005: 2482: 2466: 2370: 2357: 1138: 1082: 1003: 851: 100:

children but that there are others. My bet is, this comes from the same source as the one for the original "Child Sacrifice" article.

2930:

Again Vedexent I don't think your a person worth wasting my time with, iam bored of writing your name so iam going to stop right here.

755:

to read: "blank poster who continues to site his reply's within my posts please cut it out its childish (sighned Marduk)". Curious. -

541: 3778: 3592:

Sorry, I'm new to the contribution end of Knowledge, so the functions & forms are foreign to me. I've also not been able to read

1620: 529: 2606:

a fact). What it adds touches on relevent matters, but with details as problematic as anything it removes. It should be reverted. --

2273:

which is why I think people who have historical information should always challenge others and there radical outbursts and remarks.

938:

yourself is a blant Vandalism of information and is a clear Perversion which I suggest to you refrain from in the future, thank you

778:

Taken out the mention of the Greek poetic tradition (apparently we're not allowed to hear other culture's impression of Carthage?).

3529:

Received a response - Postinus was inerted into the NL wiki by an anon user who to date has not provided a source, unfortunately.

2829:

that Marduck sock-puppeted, but I think the circumstantial evidence makes it more than even money that it is. That is why I said

92:

In a three-paragraph discussion of Carthage, do we need to devote two of those paragraphs to a discussion of child sacrifice? --

2531:

verion - that was part of the article since prior to the edit war. I believe it could have been stated better, but it still was

2409:

to that effect. Perhaps we should be voting on something else. I don't want to "stuff the ballet box" by "loading the question".

2158: 706:

bridges to tell the truth about Carthage. But there numbers are diminishing and it wont be long until finally they disappear.

1787:

bridges to tell the truth about Carthage. But there numbers are diminishing and it wont be long until finally they disappear.

2386:- to the point of simply cut-and-pasting the same version over and over into the page. So - let us start building consensus. 2250: 2209:

historically common views are valid to mention, even if only to refute them by showing how more recent research has proved it

1485: 1451: 3043: 2394:

The question is, should Marduk's version be allowed to stand verbatim, as s/he seems unwilling to allow any other versions.

1472:

article. A little hypocricy here, you didn't think anyone would notice, or someone else was using that IP for.... 4 minutes?

1184:

As most historical sources are non-Punic, should there not be a section detailing the sources, and their possible biases? -

398: 3189: 3149: 3146: 2052:

You clearly have some large misconceptions about how Knowledge works (see your ignorance and loud complaints about how the

1312:

I highlighted the sections that were in dispute, put in tags to prompt people to put in citations for disputed points, and

510: 493:

criminals, unsuccesful generals and rebels). They could also deny the proclomations of a tyrant, the first initial form of

368:

It was Scipio Aemilianus who destroyed Carthage in the Third Punic War, not Scipio Africanus Minor who had died in 182 BC--

3574: 3238: 2235: 345: 3479: 3395:...", just mention her as a product of the sources: "According to Virgil's Aenied (or the writings of Postinus), Dido is 1188: 635: 3320: 2961: 2903: 1852: 3468: 3103: 1169:

I would call on interested Wikipedians to help out in this regard, so that opposing views can be cited, and paired off

564: 3310: 2632:

as anon/marduck, agreeing with Marduck, and signing themselves using the name of the person who is the subject of the

2340: 1843: 1568:, and the attempt to expunge any "unpleasant facts" is what rankled me the most. I acknowledge that the anon included 1550:

On the other hand, this article could use a bit of an NPOVing - NOT mass deletions; If you would like I can have a go.

162:, a Roman historian recorded that the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE took place after 737 years of its existence, 2020: 1098:

points out the evidence for sacrifice, and then points out an opposing view that the claims for sacrifice are simply

991:

your response seemed so disjointed - someone was inserting text? However, please don't put your personal messages to

590: 3109:

Maybe it would have been preferable to help Marduk rather than pound on him for being difficult (which he has been).

1862: 1720:

about truth and some Sense into life, the west really needs to grow up because people are fed up with this garbage.

1090:

I have flagged the article as disputed, and flagged the sections that seem to be "offensive" as needing citation. I

476:

Carthage's government was originally a despotist monarchy, but after several dynasties the government turned into a

1712:

like them hide under a different ruge and I have reputed every last one and iam sick of it and your kind of liers.

467: 3244:

The NO and NL articles both start with reference to Dido in the first para - "According to legend as passed on by

1481:

I've asked an admin to informally look at the sitatuion, without bringing the Arbitration commitee into it yet. -

2587: 2240: 2038: 1689: 1476: 1264: 1071:

Your edit reads like you have some sort of historical agenda. Your edits aren't any more NPOV than what is there.

605: 3533: 3524: 2299: 1423:

IF YOU UNILATERALLY REMOVE THE TAGS AND DO NOTHING ELSE I WILL CALL FOR ADMINISTRATOR ARBITRATION OF THIS MATTER

281:

I have no reference about it but it's not impossible after all lake Tunis is a salt lake and it's not that far.

2768: 2675: 2519: 2175:, we don't need to hear that you "read once in a magazine, that...", we don't need your own personal theories. 1828: 1646: 769:

Ok - first of all, this is a personal view, and a massive essay. I'm not sure what it has to do in an article.

2555: 1966: 1666: 3256:" No further mention of her is made in those articles, but I think your class lit section has strong merit. 2610: 1157: 385: 254: 2654: 2448: 2376: 2227:

This is as about as simple as I can make this. If you can't, or won't, grasp this, and if you unwilling to

2163: 1461: 775:

Taken out the disambiguation link (apparently we're not allowed to have links to OTHER uses of the term?).

3538: 1395:

I am officially calling for sources, and I am officially contesting the viewpoint of the article. If you

1179: 3286: 3087: 2797: 2733:

take. Iam starting to slowly lose interest in arguing with people like you and Vedexent, but have fun "

2186: 1433:. If you can provide sources, and balanced veiwpoints, I will be qute content to let the article stand. 38: 3176: 3173: 2014: 3059: 2752:"marduck" to incorporate his/her view into the article, if it can be cited, balanced, etc. For that, 2060:

attempt to learn either the rules (except when it suits you). Heck - you claim your reverts are the "

622: 3068:. Would he or she be so kind as to list them so that we can all be clear about them? List them in a 1880:

For the benfit of these trolls iam going to put forth to them a clear cute giudeline for the rules:

3223: 2312: 2306:

yourself do not let contended Myth Vs Facts come out a victory the "Wrong Way" and Cast your vote--

1833: 323: 3292: 2413: 859: 3459: 1654:

By the way, speaking of child sacrifice, this is what I found in a random Tunisian tourist guide:

1419:

the destruction of Carthage following the Third punic war. What was that about revionist history?

751:

after posting this paragraph, a "mysterious anonymous editor" removed the header above it, which

233:

of O'Flaherty (1685: 83-85) correctly lists several key dates of world history. From the Fall of

76: 71: 66: 3566:

and the wars leading up to them, and also some of the specific battles, including the decisive

1465: 1020:

At least sign your diatribes. If you are new enough to Knowledge that you don't know how to do

338: 3789:

Its up to 115k! I'm not sure how you archive - and I'm just on my way out the door anyways...

2405:

the issue at hand, and that the primary question should be something different, please make a

793:, explaining where the "misconceptions" come from, why they are probably wrong, and providing 551: 247: 221: 3562:, perhaps not all in sufficient detail -- though there are separate articles on each of the 3212:

Frankly, the article could be FA even if we left out mention of child sacrifice altogether.

3706: 2838:

Given the response to the RFC and the Poll here, I don't feel "threatened" and I don't see

2462:

and (for some weird reason) the disambugation link to other uses of the term "Carthage". -

1611:

The article never said that Carthaginians enjoyed killing children. It says only that it's

1460:

of vandalism for following talk page conventions they don't seem to have learned, and then

1148:

as "blank user"? Seems ironic since you were the one taking out other people's material. -

3019:

Sorry ;) I try tho not to make it a habbit :). Well thats it 2 hours, cya- signed -Marduk

2478:. I'm not sure how marduk is justifying the eradication of this point from any mention. - 8: 3726:

I don't think there has ever been any doubt that the claims of child sacrifice have been

2704: 2691: 2584: 2571: 2045:

You chose not to follow any of the advice given to you so that your edits and viewpoints

410: 399: 208: 3147:

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/C/carthage/carthage_life.html#child_sacrifice

2856:

stupid enough to fall for it. And it was done pretty blatantly. Not blatantly enough to

1662:

The source goes on and on about this topic, but honestly is there any need to continue?

1342:

other culture's views of Carthage. You have not presented them, and then said they were

3604:

I don't think I can write the actual entry, though. Can someone work with me on this? -

3567: 2255: 2171:

This is what we mean by citations. You don't seem to grasp that. We don't need to hear

602: 417:. That doesn't seem plausible, and isn't mentioned in the Hanno the navigator article. 1110:

an "offending viewpoint" as you are trying to do is not NPOV, nor is it acceptable. -

806:

Added blantantly POV passages like "Rome no doubt copied the system". Citation please?

3717: 3659: 3476: 3348: 3283: 3235: 3215: 3186: 3040: 2765: 2672: 2516: 1636: 1628: 489: 485: 456: 435: 414: 403: 342: 313: 298: 273: 134: 2426:, nor tolerate any viewpoint not their own, even in contrast. I think this violates 1388:. What I object to is someone with an apparent ideological/historical axe to grind, 3740: 3515: 3399:

as...". Sidesteps any "fuzzy" claims and lets the reader make up their own mind. -

3278:

mytho-history of many of the mediterranean cultures clustered in the Bronze Age is

1795:

head. The Carthaginians where a people of a great city and that was the City Baal.

714:

head. The Carthaginians where a people of a great city and that was the City Baal.

261: 217: 199: 2231:, then we really don't have much alternative than to keep reverting your edits. - 3612: 3530: 3521: 3465: 3418: 3366: 3317: 3257: 3202: 2788: 2552: 1963: 1849: 1825: 1804: 1686: 1585: 1561: 1551: 1542: 1495:

As per the Administrator's advice, I've listed this talk page, and the issues on

1230:

not theories or Psedu-Historical inquiry. There for I have removed the Riff Raff

632: 587: 538: 1392:. If you could, it wouldn't be a big deal. So - put up, or shut up, as they say. 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3571: 3440: 3282:

hard to classify as either myth or history. We have input from the writings of

3069: 2639: 2607: 2427: 2423: 2389: 2165: 2124: 2073: 2069: 1673: 1438: 817:

What the "author" has done is simply disagreed with a view in the article, and

613: 595: 526: 502: 422: 108: 3066:

my Citations and sources that I have presented within and outside the article.

1902:

Fabricated information (hmm time for the trolls to think on this one,...FACTS)

127: 3790: 3775: 3748: 3691: 3676: 3643: 3626: 3504: 3490: 3400: 3307: 3295: 3100: 3034: 3002: 2958: 2900: 2651: 2536: 2479: 2463: 2445: 2367: 2354: 2337: 2296: 2247: 2232: 2155: 1959: 1953: 1840: 1643: 1602: 1501: 1482: 1448: 1185: 1162:

It is obvious that this article is highly questionable, especially as it has

1149: 1135: 1111: 1079: 1000: 976: 848: 756: 525:

good, solid information -- including the actual Phoenician word ŠPṬ (שפט). --

501:

I'm not a Carthaginian expert, but the introduction of an obviously spurious

443: 242: 47: 17: 1564:

that "unfair" anecdotes that have historical tradition need to be included,

3206: 3162: 3159: 3125: 3122: 2475: 1233:((quote}}:# What the primary objection to your edits is this: You removed 121: 101: 3194:

Clearly an NPOV article would have to discuss both sides of the question.

1390:

who seems incapable of citing historical sources to support their position

1102:

and are may not be true. This is a blanced view, which needs citation for

772:

The author of it - or at least an anonymous editor with similar views has

87: 3764: 3757:

For those who missed it, this is what I found in a Tunisian travel guide:

3735: 3549: 3095:

Perhaps this has been a rather large misunderstanding and we just havn't

3083: 2860:

it, but come on! If you're going to try and trick me, at least make some

2720: 2681:

Hannibal's comment, it seems spurious to me....19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

2566: 2120: 2011: 1859: 1663: 1617: 1517: 1442: 1415:

You completely removed the section on the Roman colonization of the site

1099: 1031:

If you're going to put in "facts" please cite them, or they'll be removed

455:

Then you would likely benefit from reading this article in its entirety.

392: 1173:

opposing views, viewpoints balanced, and unsubstatiated points removed.

3563: 1971: 1384:. What I object to is you totally re-writing the article and providing 507: 317: 282: 142: 3155:

This website has annoying ads but presents a "middle of the road" view

1730: 1278:, indenting it appropriately to indicate a seperate person. Like this. 1193: 640: 3136: 3131: 1890: 1270:

I did not "insert text" and sign what you put in with my name. It is

418: 204: 3520:

I've posted a query on nl:wiki asking for their source for Postinus.

3205:

has commented to me that he thinks this article has potential to be

2756:

their response, you are free to read the talk page and the edit log.

735:

than having temper-tantrums when that ettiquite fails to match your

3647: 3174:

http://archaeology.stanford.edu/journal/newdraft/garnand/paper.html

2778: 2634: 2598: 558: 477: 93: 797:

for that. To be fair, the "human sacrifice" angle should have its

120:

Here is an interesting discussion of Child Sacrifice in Carthage:

3464:

Just for curiosity sake, how long does the page protection last?

1694: 357: 337:

If you can cite a source, you should add it. Be sure to add the

269:

years. If someone else wants to grab that task, I'd be grateful.

3289: 2565:: Marduk seems to misunderstand the goal of Knowledge. As the 1566:

if for no other reason than to present reasons to discount them

1223:

within this page, so onther cludder of space has been removed.

147: 1049:

What the primary objection to your edits is this: You removed

934:

Fictional Books or just Rant and rave on a forum if you like.

747:

comments have been following the conventional ettiquitte here.

3253: 1431:

they are not willing to back up their "ideology" with sources

1024:, I would suggest you don't really know enough about how the 785:

with the idea that human sacrifice occured, and can provided

3064:

Marduk has claimed that he has provided numerous citations:

2891:

I am not, and never will be, a Saint. But everything I have

2150:

idea why you keep removing the disambugation link! That has

2128: 1979:""For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded: 1877:

then clear cut points,Facts,information that I have put on.

975:. That is why I made the (now) following comment as well! - 3274: 3249: 1469: 234: 2451:(oops - either forgot to sign or it got edited out later). 2096:

want a more balanced view of Carthage, and are willing to

1867: 1028:

works to be doing large-scale, ideologically based, edits.

2086: 1456:

I have problems taking an "editor" seriously who accuses

2808:", etc (ironically, marduck then turns around and says: 133:

significantly shortened and qualified for NPOV reasons.

2806:

some worked up high school girl who just had her period

3646:

with a request that it be cleaned up and put into the

2179:

we need actual, published, academic works as citations

1581: 1313: 472:

Recently an anonymous IP address added the following:

164:

Carthago post annos 737 quam fuerat extructa exciditur

2874:

As a last note: marduck has repeatedly accused me of

2068:

the definition of Vandalism? If so, great. How about

1241:

group of unsubstatiated facts. Why should we choose

963:. Point #1 was made in the list below because when I 488:, a legislature much like that of Rome's Senate. The 141:

The date of Carthage's foundation is crucial for the

2882:. I have asked a couple of times for him to provide 1541:(as long as we dont take their opinions as 'facts') 1497:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/History and geography

1491:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/History and geography

1057:

group of unsubstatiated facts. Why should we choose

789:

that it never did, such evidence should be provided

781:

Removed the mention of human sacrifice. Even if you

3760:

The Tophet, centre of Carthaginian child sacrifice:

2207:Not all of them, as you seem to fail to grasp that 2104:be addressed. I will warn you right up front that 1657:

The Tophet, centre of Carthaginian child sacrifice:

821:. This is censorship. This is borderline vandalism. 2842:pressing need to invalidate an anon yes vote: the 683:on to them even as the imagination is dispelled. 650:the amount of saddness and stupidity is staggering 3119:This website presents both sides of the question. 2804:call them "Tolls", "Vandals", "complete idiot", " 2139:be mentioned. Thus, your attempts to remove them 1764:on to them even as the imagination is dispelled. 2817:this talk page and seriously conclude that I am 2220:) allegations by Roman and Greek historians are 1362:provided your own histortical sources. Therefore 718:Responses, as per Knowledge Talk page convention 3033:Alright guys, put a lid on it. Please observe 1346:, because of this-and-that fact. You have just 1130:. Put them in the bibliography, make reference 1038:of certain historians are noted. They are your 743:to figure out why you were complaining because 731:recommend you learn the ettiquite of Knowledge 2269:personal attacks as iam sure you can as well. 1350:, allowing no other cultures input. Therefore. 2143:vandalism, and will not be allowed to stand. 2116:write about Carthage, it is valid to mention. 1576:is woefully undercited, and not totally NPOV 1445:sections of the Knowledge writing guidelines. 3198:Does this article have potential to be a FA? 2618:You should go with facts not myth. Hannibal 2434:direction, refused to provide citations for 1814:; additionally, same site provides argument 1412:, I will be happy to take the tags back off. 723: 316:maybe we could incorporate this debate in ? 1798:People need to stop vandalizing now please 1302:to Knowledge and how things are done here. 973:It is why they didn't make any sense to me! 3273:article has the potential to be FA ;) The 801:citations and supporting evidence as well. 3701:Verifiability of child sacrifice details? 3114:Here's what a quick Google search dug up: 1324:is allowed to have viewpoints or respond? 3785:Can someone archive chunks of this page? 3160:http://i-cias.com/tunisia/carthage02.htm 3123:http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html 2825:than "marduck"? I know that there is no 1094:note, however, that the original author 122:http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html 3489:if anyone wants to add comment to it - 449:I think it was destroyed by the Romans 429:what ever happened to Carthage, anyway? 14: 987:Ah - that's what happened. I wondered 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3671:Page is unlocked. Now semi-protected. 3586:So, about this rebuilding Carthage... 3001:get the last word in, don't you :) - 1976:Please read this part of the section 1824:nothing don't count as playing nice. 2912:"I don't like you"--Signed Vedexent: 2624:Am I the only only one who finds an 2216:. This is the reason that (possibly 1370:I am not a "Graco-Roman Apologist". 1298:indicates to me that you are almost 1237:set of unsubstantiated facts, with 25: 1372:I never wrote the original article' 1106:side of the argument. Unilaterally 1053:set of unsubstantiated facts, with 23: 3675:Edit to your heart's content :) - 3132:http://phoenicia.org/bibliogr.html 1327:You have repeatedly taken out the 24: 3804: 3743:for the last (recorded) time the 2869:of rational argument in response. 2744:Nope, Richard is right. There is 2332:LOL - I rather thought you would 1245:over what is there?((end Quote)) 1166:inline citations and footnotes. 1158:Call for citations and references 386:Fathers of international commerce 255:Salting of Carthage by the Romans 3099:the references being provided - 2089:in your case) abuse department. 957:I have NOT edited your responses 29: 3548:Carthage is famous for! :) -- 2805: 1462:according to their own edit log 1399:sources, show them, and I will 1360:at no time, despite being asked 791:along side the "misconceptions" 220:may add up to form an accurate 3138:(referenced by the above page) 2062:correction of simple vandalism 2039:Knowledge arbitartion commitee 1991:correction of simple vandalism 1627:the way he/she is pushing it. 1580:. That was what was behind my 1464:stop discussing to run off to 1437:Please pay close attention to 211:, agree accurately. Josephus, 13: 1: 1292:you didn't sign your commnets 1261:thank you--Marduk of Babylon 959:- so don't go accusing me of 942:Pure,Clean and to the point. 636:18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 617:23:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC) 606:04:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC) 542:18:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 460:01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 346:03:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 2261:sources,Citation, and clear 860:Cleansing and Purty of Facts 591:13:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 565:13:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC) 530:23:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 511:21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7: 2224:to mention in the article. 1348:taken them out unilaterally 1122:what historical sources are 480:. The highest rank was the 10: 3809: 3794:23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3779:23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3768:10:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3752:09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3721:08:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3695:00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3680:00:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3663:04:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3630:02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3616:00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3575:15:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 3534:15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 3525:17:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3508:00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 3494:03:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3485:Yes I did. The request is 3480:02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3469:01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3444:15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 3422:17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3404:16:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3370:15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3352:02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3321:01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3311:00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3299:23:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 3261:20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 3248:, Carthage was founded by 3239:20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 3219:20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 3190:16:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 3104:15:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 3044:07:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 3006:03:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2962:03:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2904:23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 2792:14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 2769:06:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 2724:00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2708:20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 2676:18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 2655:16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 2611:19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2588:18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2556:16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2540:16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2520:15:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2483:16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2467:16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2449:15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2371:15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2358:14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2341:14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2300:14:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2251:13:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2236:12:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2187:Knowledge:Reliable sources 2159:10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2015:00:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 1967:05:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 1863:01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 1853:00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 1844:00:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 1829:20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1690:15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1667:10:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1647:10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1632:06:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1621:03:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1606:03:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1555:02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1546:02:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1521:02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1505:01:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1486:01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1452:01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1314:called for people to do so 1189:22:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 1153:21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 1139:21:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 1115:21:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 1083:20:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 1066:take out all the wikilinks 1004:21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 980:22:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 952:Response to above "points" 852:13:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 760:02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 194:of www.google.com as well. 2570:article is unacceptable. 2204:sources for your edits. 2021:Marduk, face it, you lost 1589:short, I don't object to 1386:not one supporting source 1207:Now thats out of the way: 395:02:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) 375:Scipio Africanus Minor!! 372:04:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) 365:Scipio Africanus Minor?? 320:06:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) 264:00:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) 184:Ancient Universal History 3734:is that it is a case of 2056:worked!), and have made 1597:potential imblance with 1354:{{TotallyDisputed}} 1286:"This is a response" - B 1282:"This is a comment" - A 739:convensions. It took me 468:Recent anonymous changes 438:21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) 425:21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) 409:I removed the fact that 301:16:53, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) 285:10:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC) 176:Rollin's Ancient History 137:11:17 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC) 2384:that particular version 2241:Carthaginian Archeology 2146:As a side note, I have 1477:Contacted Administrator 1265:Calling for arbitration 945:Marduk Of babylon ---- 819:unilaterally removed it 229:A masterpiece entitled 1928:Inappropriate pictures 1466:commit minor vandalism 1406:back up what you claim 1331:link which is common, 1078:, put material in. - 870:like there enemy rome. 180:Rollin's Roman History 3339:Alexander the Great.' 2229:work with people here 2200:once you can provice 2183:don't typically count 2092:The thing is, if you 1950:-- Marduk Of Babylon 1380:if it is correct, or 1305:As for your edits... 830:Because of this, I'm 248:Phoenician chronology 222:Phoenician chronology 42:of past discussions. 3707:Religion in Carthage 3252:after she fled from 2567:verifiability policy 2377:Page has been locked 2349:By the way, can you 2328:--Marduk Of Babylon 2290:--Marduk Of Babylon 2005:--Marduk of Babylon 1274:to put responses to 967:your responses were 182:, Volumes III-V, or 3539:Cartago delenda est 1410:in a neutral manner 1296:you don't know this 1276:in the same section 1180:Section on Sources? 1061:over what is there? 1026:wikipedia community 434:assertion? Thanks, 411:Hanno the Navigator 400:Hanno the Navigator 209:Menander of Ephesus 168:Reese's Cyclopaedia 3685:I've also decided 3596:on this talk page. 3568:Battle of Carthage 2798:Flame Contest Weee 2401:if you think this 2352: 2041:, but given that: 1801:Marduk of babylon 1727:Marduk of Babylon 1531:references should 1320:all that. I guess 631:, groups of 4... 128:Updated chronology 3329:been real people. 3284:Junianus Justinus 3074:Big book of rocks 3060:Request Citations 2501:Marduk of Babylon 2350: 2308:Marduk Of Babylon 2196:of this argument 1366:{{Not verified}} 623:Carthaginian navy 490:Council of Elders 486:Council of Elders 415:Cape of Good Hope 404:Cape of Good Hope 314:Salting the earth 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3800: 3741:Battle of Cannae 3552:, Latin Teacher 3224:Dido and Elissar 2880:personal attacks 2702: 2697: 2582: 2577: 2313:Thank you Admins 2100:, your concerns 2098:work with people 2064:". Did you even 1941:Random junk text 1834:End the argument 965:got to this page 324:sack of Carthage 218:Josephus Flavius 200:Josephus Flavius 88:Human Sacrifice? 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3787: 3703: 3673: 3588: 3541: 3518: 3462: 3460:Page Protection 3269:Theoretically, 3226: 3203:User:Bridesmill 3200: 3062: 2897:to my own words 2800: 2789:Septentrionalis 2700: 2695: 2580: 2575: 2416: 2392: 2379: 2315: 2258: 2243: 2169: 2023: 1974: 1956: 1893:") can include: 1870: 1836: 1807: 1733: 1702:I HAVE GIVEN IT 1697: 1639: 1582:earlier request 1493: 1479: 1340:totally removed 1267: 1196: 1182: 1160: 1120:Main question: 995:as headers for 954: 862: 720: 652: 643: 625: 598: 554: 470: 431: 407: 388: 360: 326: 257: 192:On-line Library 154:, II, XVII-XXX. 130: 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3806: 3786: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3761: 3758: 3755: 3754: 3728:highly dubious 3702: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3672: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3635: 3633: 3632: 3620: 3610: 3587: 3584: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3558:All these are 3540: 3537: 3517: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3497: 3496: 3461: 3458: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3387:...", or "The 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3264: 3263: 3225: 3222: 3199: 3196: 3184: 3183: 3179: 3178: 3170: 3169: 3157: 3156: 3152: 3151: 3144: 3143:This one, too. 3140: 3139: 3134: 3128: 3127: 3120: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3093: 3092: 3089: 3085: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3038: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2941: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2907: 2906: 2871: 2870: 2849: 2848: 2835: 2834: 2799: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2772: 2771: 2758: 2757: 2727: 2726: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2626:anonymous user 2613: 2591: 2590: 2559: 2558: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2512: 2511: 2504: 2503: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2469: 2453: 2452: 2415: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2391: 2388: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2344: 2343: 2314: 2311: 2303: 2302: 2257: 2254: 2242: 2239: 2168: 2162: 2133: 2132: 2117: 2078: 2077: 2050: 2022: 2019: 2018: 2017: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1988: 1973: 1970: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1889:Nonsense (or " 1869: 1866: 1835: 1832: 1806: 1803: 1739: 1732: 1731:Everyone knows 1729: 1696: 1693: 1661: 1658: 1655: 1653: 1638: 1635: 1624: 1623: 1525: 1514: 1492: 1489: 1478: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1454: 1434: 1420: 1413: 1393: 1364: 1363: 1352: 1351: 1336: 1329:disambiguation 1325: 1322:no one but you 1310: 1290:The fact that 1288: 1287: 1280: 1279: 1266: 1263: 1195: 1194:An end to Myth 1192: 1181: 1178: 1159: 1156: 1142: 1141: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1074:When you have 1072: 1069: 1062: 1047: 1043: 1032: 1029: 1018: 1011: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 953: 950: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 892: 891: 885: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 861: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 838: 837: 836: 835: 825: 824: 823: 822: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 804: 803: 802: 779: 776: 770: 724:comments below 719: 716: 658: 651: 648: 642: 641:Quick question 639: 624: 621: 620: 619: 597: 594: 553: 550: 545: 544: 533: 532: 503:folk etymology 499: 498: 469: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 447: 446: 430: 427: 406: 397: 387: 384: 382: 359: 356: 354: 351: 349: 348: 325: 322: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 289: 288: 287: 286: 271: 270: 256: 253: 252: 251: 226: 225: 196: 195: 188:Contra Apionem 160:Iulius Solinus 156: 155: 129: 126: 105: 104: 89: 86: 84: 80: 79: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3805: 3796: 3795: 3792: 3780: 3777: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3766: 3763: 3753: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3708: 3696: 3693: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3678: 3664: 3661: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3649: 3645: 3644:Talk:Carthage 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3631: 3628: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3618: 3617: 3614: 3608: 3607: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3595: 3583: 3576: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3551: 3547: 3536: 3535: 3532: 3527: 3526: 3523: 3509: 3506: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3495: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3478: 3474: 3471: 3470: 3467: 3457: 3445: 3442: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3423: 3420: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3405: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3371: 3368: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3353: 3350: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3319: 3313: 3312: 3309: 3300: 3297: 3293: 3291: 3287: 3285: 3281: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3262: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3237: 3233: 3230: 3221: 3220: 3217: 3213: 3210: 3208: 3204: 3195: 3192: 3191: 3188: 3181: 3180: 3177: 3175: 3172: 3171: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3161: 3154: 3153: 3150: 3148: 3145: 3142: 3141: 3137: 3135: 3133: 3130: 3129: 3126: 3124: 3121: 3118: 3117: 3113: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3090: 3088: 3086: 3084: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079:Like this... 3077: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3045: 3042: 3039: 3036: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3007: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2963: 2960: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2913: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2868: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2850: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2819:less tolerant 2816: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2801: 2793: 2790: 2785: 2780: 2777: 2774: 2773: 2770: 2767: 2763: 2760: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2736: 2731: 2725: 2722: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2709: 2706: 2703: 2698: 2693: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2674: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2664: 2656: 2653: 2650:guideline? - 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2631: 2630:same rhetoric 2628:who uses the 2627: 2623: 2620: 2619: 2617: 2614: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2600: 2596: 2593: 2592: 2589: 2586: 2583: 2578: 2573: 2568: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2557: 2554: 2550: 2547: 2546: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2513: 2509: 2506: 2505: 2502: 2497: 2493: 2490: 2489: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2476:this sub-page 2473: 2470: 2468: 2465: 2460: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2450: 2447: 2442: 2439:views can be 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2418: 2417: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2387: 2385: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2359: 2356: 2351:quote some of 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2326: 2323: 2319: 2310: 2309: 2301: 2298: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2288: 2285: 2284:use "Reason" 2281: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2264: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2238: 2237: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2205: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2190: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2174: 2167: 2164:Marduk, read 2161: 2160: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2144: 2142: 2138: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2090: 2088: 2082: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2031: 2028: 2016: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2003: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1969: 1968: 1965: 1961: 1951: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1886: 1885: 1881: 1878: 1876: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1855: 1854: 1851: 1846: 1845: 1842: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1822: 1817: 1813: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1737: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1703: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1682: 1679: 1676:. Failure to 1675: 1669: 1668: 1665: 1660: 1649: 1648: 1645: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1622: 1619: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1548: 1547: 1544: 1539: 1534: 1530: 1523: 1522: 1519: 1512: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1498: 1488: 1487: 1484: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1444: 1440: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1333:if not policy 1330: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1262: 1259: 1257: 1252: 1249: 1246: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1216: 1215: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1191: 1190: 1187: 1177: 1174: 1172: 1167: 1165: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1147: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1070: 1067: 1064:What did you 1063: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 949: 946: 943: 939: 935: 931: 929: 923: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 888: 887: 886: 883: 879: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 853: 850: 846: 842: 841: 840: 839: 833: 829: 828: 827: 826: 820: 816: 815: 814: 813: 805: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 777: 774: 773: 771: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 725: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 684: 680: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 656: 647: 638: 637: 634: 630: 618: 615: 610: 609: 608: 607: 604: 603:Nudas veritas 593: 592: 589: 584: 581: 577: 574: 571: 568: 566: 563: 560: 552:Minor changes 549: 543: 540: 535: 534: 531: 528: 524: 519: 515: 514: 513: 512: 509: 504: 496: 491: 487: 483: 479: 475: 474: 473: 461: 458: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 445: 441: 440: 439: 437: 426: 424: 420: 416: 412: 405: 401: 396: 394: 383: 380: 376: 373: 371: 370:Mike Spalding 366: 363: 355: 352: 347: 344: 340: 336: 335: 334: 332: 321: 319: 315: 311: 300: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 284: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 267: 266: 265: 263: 249: 244: 243:Old Testament 240: 239:Troja excisae 236: 232: 228: 227: 223: 219: 214: 210: 206: 201: 198: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 158: 157: 153: 149: 144: 140: 139: 138: 136: 125: 123: 118: 115: 111: 110: 103: 98: 97: 96: 95: 85: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 18:Talk:Carthage 3788: 3759: 3756: 3744: 3731: 3727: 3716: 3712: 3704: 3686: 3674: 3634: 3619: 3609: 3603: 3599: 3593: 3591: 3590:Disclaimer: 3589: 3581: 3559: 3545: 3542: 3528: 3519: 3475: 3472: 3463: 3454: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3314: 3305: 3279: 3270: 3234: 3231: 3227: 3214: 3211: 3201: 3193: 3185: 3158: 3096: 3094: 3078: 3073: 3065: 3063: 3018: 2998: 2944: 2911: 2908: 2896: 2892: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2866: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2843: 2839: 2831:suspicicious 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2809: 2783: 2775: 2766:Throbblefoot 2761: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2734: 2729: 2728: 2716: 2662: 2661: 2647: 2643: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2615: 2603: 2594: 2562: 2548: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2507: 2500: 2495: 2491: 2471: 2458: 2440: 2435: 2431: 2419: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2393: 2383: 2380: 2333: 2327: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2307: 2304: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2259: 2244: 2228: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2212: 2211: 2208: 2206: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2191: 2182: 2181:. Web sites 2178: 2177: 2172: 2170: 2151: 2147: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2134: 2113: 2109: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2091: 2083: 2079: 2072:? How about 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2046: 2034: 2032: 2026: 2024: 2004: 2000: 1990: 1987:self-reverts 1978: 1975: 1958:Please read 1957: 1948: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1882: 1879: 1874: 1871: 1856: 1847: 1837: 1820: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1800: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1766: 1762: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1738: 1734: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1701: 1698: 1683: 1677: 1670: 1656: 1650: 1640: 1625: 1612: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1577: 1574:as it stands 1573: 1569: 1565: 1558: 1549: 1537: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1510: 1508: 1494: 1480: 1457: 1436: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1416: 1409: 1408:, and do so 1405: 1400: 1396: 1389: 1385: 1379: 1377: 1373: 1371: 1365: 1359: 1353: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1332: 1328: 1321: 1317: 1304: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1289: 1281: 1275: 1271: 1260: 1255: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1232: 1228: 1225: 1220: 1217: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1183: 1175: 1170: 1168: 1164:little to no 1163: 1161: 1145: 1143: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1121: 1107: 1103: 1095: 1091: 1089: 1075: 1065: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1039: 1035: 1025: 1021: 1010: 999:response. - 996: 992: 988: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 955: 947: 944: 940: 936: 932: 927: 924: 921: 914:information. 884: 880: 877: 844: 831: 818: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 721: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 685: 681: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 657: 653: 644: 628: 626: 599: 585: 582: 578: 575: 572: 569: 562:84.84.220.60 555: 546: 522: 517: 500: 494: 481: 471: 457:Throbblefoot 448: 436:Throbblefoot 432: 408: 389: 381: 377: 374: 367: 364: 361: 353: 350: 343:Throbblefoot 333:14 Nov 2005 331:Kevininspace 327: 308: 299:Justin Bacon 274:Justin Bacon 272: 258: 238: 230: 212: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 152:The Republic 151: 135:Andre Engels 131: 119: 116: 112: 106: 91: 83: 60: 43: 37: 3736:blood libel 2535:balanced - 2527:That isn't 2129:WP:Cite.php 2121:blood libel 1538:allegations 1300:totally new 1100:blood libel 971:messed up. 358:Incoherence 262:Adam Bishop 166:. Also see 36:This is an 3613:Bridesmill 3594:everything 3564:Punic Wars 3531:Bridesmill 3522:Bridesmill 3466:Bridesmill 3419:Bridesmill 3367:Bridesmill 3318:Bridesmill 3294:as well - 3258:Bridesmill 3097:understood 2692:Kirill Lok 2646:Violating 2635:other page 2572:Kirill Lok 2553:Bridesmill 2334:conviently 2325:Thank you 2287:Thank you 2256:Complaints 2194:great deal 2037:go to the 1964:Bridesmill 1884:Vandalisim 1850:Bridesmill 1826:Bridesmill 1687:Bridesmill 1586:Bridesmill 1562:Bridesmill 1552:Bridesmill 1543:Bridesmill 1533:definitely 1425:. I don't 1417:well after 1374:. I don't 1272:convention 1046:Knowledge. 633:Trekphiler 588:Philopedia 539:Trekphiler 341:, though. 178:Volume I, 143:chronology 3572:Americist 3560:mentioned 3546:something 3441:Americist 3397:described 2997:You just 2893:concretly 2823:less fair 2608:Americist 2472:Addendum: 2459:Addendum: 2198:goes away 2112:cultures 2054:talk page 1915:Profanity 1891:vandalism 1695:Vandalism 1678:Play Nice 1637:Vandalism 1529:scholarly 1358:You have 1338:You have 1214:The Facts 1076:citations 1022:this much 961:Vandalism 832:reverting 749:Addendum: 614:Binabik80 570:Timbert, 527:Americist 506:is BS. -- 260:that...) 205:Pygmalion 109:AxelBoldt 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 3791:Vedexent 3776:Vedexent 3749:Vedexent 3692:Vedexent 3677:Vedexent 3650:article. 3648:Carthage 3627:Vedexent 3516:Postinus 3505:Vedexent 3491:Vedexent 3401:Vedexent 3391:of Dido 3308:Vedexent 3296:Vedexent 3246:Postinus 3101:Vedexent 3076:, etc.) 3003:Vedexent 2959:Vedexent 2901:Vedexent 2779:Carthage 2776:Disagree 2762:Disagree 2746:no proof 2742:Commnet: 2730:Comment: 2717:Disagree 2663:Comment: 2652:Vedexent 2622:Comment: 2599:Carthage 2595:Disagree 2563:Disagree 2549:Disagree 2537:Vedexent 2533:somewhat 2525:Comment: 2508:Disagree 2480:Vedexent 2464:Vedexent 2446:Vedexent 2432:opposite 2420:Disagree 2407:comment: 2390:Question 2368:Vedexent 2355:Vedexent 2338:Vedexent 2297:Vedexent 2248:Vedexent 2233:Vedexent 2202:academic 2173:argument 2156:Vedexent 2108:Because 2027:continue 1868:Trolling 1841:Vedexent 1644:Vedexent 1613:recorded 1603:Vedexent 1502:Vedexent 1483:Vedexent 1449:Vedexent 1335:to have. 1256:NO FACTS 1186:Vedexent 1150:Vedexent 1136:Vedexent 1134:them. - 1112:Vedexent 1108:removing 1080:Vedexent 1040:opinions 1036:opinions 1001:Vedexent 977:Vedexent 849:Vedexent 795:evidence 787:evidence 783:disagree 757:Vedexent 737:personal 729:strongly 629:triremes 567:Timbert 559:Sardinia 478:republic 444:AnonMoos 413:reached 339:citation 172:Carthage 3732:opinion 3718:Richard 3660:Richard 3477:Richard 3349:Richard 3236:Richard 3216:Richard 3187:Richard 3091:others? 3070:WP:Cite 3041:Richard 2943:Signed 2876:threats 2867:capable 2673:Richard 2648:another 2640:WP:SOCK 2517:Richard 2441:blended 2428:WP:NPOV 2424:WP:Cite 2166:WP:Cite 2152:nothing 2125:WP:Cite 2074:WP:Cite 2070:WP:NPOV 1805:Firstly 1674:WP:NPOV 1629:Richard 1599:another 1570:usefull 1468:in the 1439:WP:NPOV 1239:another 1096:already 1055:another 969:already 741:forever 102:Rgamble 39:archive 3765:Miskin 3745:Romans 3550:Mrcolj 3389:legend 3290:Appian 3288:, and 3168:issue. 3035:WP:NPA 2957:LOL - 2945:Marduk 2862:effort 2735:Raving 2721:Miskin 2616:Agree: 2604:always 2496:Reason 2263:Reason 2218:unfair 2185:. See 2137:should 2094:really 2012:Miskin 1960:WP:3RR 1860:Miskin 1812:source 1664:Miskin 1618:Miskin 1578:either 1518:Miskin 1401:gladly 1318:erased 1316:. You 1128:using? 733:rather 596:Canaan 482:tyrant 393:AlainV 231:Ogygia 170:under 148:Cicero 3730:. My 3254:Tyrus 3207:WP:FA 2999:gotta 2884:links 2858:prove 2827:proof 2492:Agree 2414:Votes 2403:isn't 2399:Note: 2222:valid 2213:wrong 2110:other 2047:could 1954:Blank 1875:myths 1816:"for" 1584:. As 1344:wrong 1243:yours 1221:Facts 1059:yours 1042:only. 1034:your 928:Facts 845:other 508:Jfruh 318:Ericd 283:Ericd 237:, or 174:, or 16:< 3487:Here 3393:says 3280:very 3275:Dido 3250:Dido 2940:now. 2878:and 2844:only 2821:and 2815:read 2750:with 2436:that 2127:and 2066:read 2033:You 1591:some 1470:Rome 1443:WP:V 1441:and 1427:care 1397:have 1378:know 1294:and 1104:both 993:them 753:used 722:See 523:over 495:veto 423:talk 419:Thue 402:and 235:Troy 213:Wars 3687:not 3385:was 3271:any 2854:all 2840:any 2754:and 2141:are 2114:did 2102:can 2087:AOL 2035:can 1821:not 1595:one 1382:not 1235:one 1125:you 1051:one 989:why 799:own 518:was 94:Zoe 3606:W. 2888:am 2784:is 2705:in 2642:: 2585:in 2529:my 2192:A 2189:. 2148:no 2058:no 1972:WP 1704:. 1601:- 1458:me 1447:- 1171:as 1146:me 1132:to 1092:do 1068:?! 997:my 930:. 745:my 586:-- 421:| 150:, 3037:. 2833:. 2701:h 2696:s 2581:h 2576:s 2131:. 2085:( 2076:? 1993:" 1513:" 1509:" 497:. 250:. 224:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index